Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

WP:NOTHERE editor using an article's talk page as WP:FORUM

• Fariborz26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this user is using Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis like a WP:FORUM. first i answered him with sources but he does not get the point and keep feeding the talk page with his sole POV. Then i removed the discussions per WP:FORUM, WP:TROLL and WP:DONTFEED, but now, he's edit warring in order to reinstate his irrelevant edits and says that this is his "freedom of speech" or WP:BATTLEGROUND comments like "you could not stop me" on his talk page : [1]. IMO, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE troll. Admins attention is required. Thanks very much.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAP case. Looking at their comments shows the reported user thinks WP is a forum and articles should be rewritten based on their nationalistic fantasies. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a few sentences in "talk page" and share my concern about the article, at first Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) deleted my writings and called me troll and diversionist ( while I did not change the main page). Then I undo my section (in talk page) and described my reason, after that again Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writings, threated me to block and accused me of using the talk page as the forum (while I just respond to his concern), so now somebody else, Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) delete my writing, threated me to block, and call me a nationalist who wants to write my nationalistic fantasies, who is Wario-Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? is he an administrator with such pre-judgemental mind? How could I write a few sentences and share my concern in talk page?Fariborz26 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Content dispute? Background: Iranian Azerbaijanis is about Azerbaijanis living in Iran. Not surprisingly, whether they are Iranian or not Iranian is a topic of discussion. Before Aug 2018, the Origin section of the article began by discussing a 2013 Russian DNA study that concluded not Iranian (or more Georgian than Iranian). In August, Wikaviani added content sourced to two Iranian studies that concluded Iranian. [2] [3] On 4 Jan, Fariborz26 posted on the article's talk page and a discussion ensued about the Origin section and the studies cited. [4] On 15 Jan, Wikaviani deleted the talk page discussion, [5] Fariborz26 undid [6] and added more comments, [7] [8] Wikaviani reverted [9] and posted a warning, [10] Fariborz26 undid, [11] Wario-Man reverted [12] and posted a final warning, [13] about the same time this ANI was posted. Fariborz26 posted an additional article talk page comment. [14] Seems to me the objections are centered on WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and whether the entire DNA/origin issue should even be in the article at all. I express no opinion on that but if this is a content dispute about the studies, perhaps third opinion or dispute resolution is the proper forum. Also I'm curious about reverting a bot's edit with the edit summary "removed an unreliable source" when the source is an MIT Press book. [15] Levivich? ! 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a content dispute and what you have posted is irrelevant to this ANI case. User:Wikaviani's edits are another story and if any editor thinks they're wrong, they should discuss on article talk page. This report is about the behavior and comments of reported user on talk page. It seems you're not familiar with this topic and that's the reason why you think his comments are content dispute stuff (as if they're caused by Wikaviani's edits). Even his last comment does not make any sense at all.[16]; e.g. he said: "You could not find the Origin section in the rest of the ethnic groups' pages." Really?! Almost all articles about ethnic groups have a section named "Origins" and many others have "Genetics" too. Don't you think posting such comments on talk pages is some kind of trolling or inappropriate behavior? He wants to remove some content from the article only because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Per his comments, he also likes to insert his ethnocentrist POV and nationalistic rants instead of sourced content. And finally his behavior fits in WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: This has nothing to do with a content dispute, this is about a WP:NOTHERE ethno-nationalist troll who wants to rewrite the Iranian Azerbaijanis article in the way he likes. My mistake was that i began discussing with him on the article's talk page instead of simply ignoring him or, better, removing his WP:FORUM-like unsourced comments. Also, the "third opinion" was Wario-Man. As to your remark about my removal of a source, please take a look at who Brenda Schaffer is and you'll understand why i removed her.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked into her. Brenda Shaffer is a professor at Georgetown University [17] and the University of Haifa, former research director for Caspian Studies at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government [18], a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council [19], published by MIT Press, University of Pennsylvania Press and others, testified before the US Congress, quoted in the media, and generally appears to me to be a recognized scholar in the area. I'm guessing this is about the accusations in Huffington Post [20], The New Republic [21], and OCCRP [22]. I call it a content dispute because the dispute appears to be about what content should be in the article or not be in the article, or what source should be cited or not be cited. Levivich? ! 15:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you're off-topic, this is not the place for such a discussion, i will gladly discuss about Schaffer with you on the article's talk page. But to make it short, yeah, it's about those articles you linked above and others.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I like your both suggestions; please tell me what I should do for the next step. Also, I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications.Fariborz26 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fariborz26: My first suggestion for "next step" is to wait and do nothing (at least for a few more days), to give other editors a chance to comment here, and see what others think. I only speak for myself and not for anyone else, and others may have a different point of view on this issue. If there is no progress here or on the article talk page after a few days, you might want to ask for help on the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you do post to DRN, keep the issue as narrow and simple as possible (don't complain about mistreatment of entire groups of people generally, but rather ask for opinons about this edit or that section of a specific article). I hope this help! ^Leviv_ich? ! 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

As per the above diffs, comments, and the reported user's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments (like "I believe for such a sensitive subject, we have to use the most reliable, international and impartial studies with high impact factors, which unfortunately the 1 and 2 content sources which added by Wikaviani do not meet these qualifications") who sounds like having some serious WP:CIR issues (one more example here where he believes to have provided a reliable source with high impact factors with a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written ...), i make the below proposal :

===Topic ban proposal=== An indef topic ban on all topics related to the Azerbaijanis and Iran broadly construed.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, for three reasons:

1. I don't see what the editor did that violated any policy; raising objections about an article's content on its talk page is exactly what we're supposed to do. This still seems like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute, to me.
2. There appear to be good-faith reasons to have concerns about the two studies (1 and 2 in Wikaviani's comment above the proposal). Both studies suggest that Iranian Azeris are Iranian; both are from Iranian universities; neither is highly cited; and both are published in what may be low- or no-impact or non-notable journals: International Journal of Modern Anthropology (can't find on RG or SJR, 6 cites on WP), and International Journal of Immunogenetics (Ovid IF 1, SJR H-Index 43, 21 WP cites). Fariborz26's objection to the two seems to be a good-faith one to me.
3. Wikaviani's third link, in the sentence "one more example here", is to Fariborz's post on the article talk page, in which Fariborz linked to National Geographic Society's Genographic Project 2.0's article about reference populations, which Wikaviani characterizes as "a random company article full of mistakes and poorly written". But if you read the talk page post, Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, he's arguing for removing the Origin section altogether based on, as I understand it, genetic diversity and the challenges that arise in using DNA studies to categorize people into definite groups, and he was using the Geno 2.0 study as evidence of the broader point about classification of ethnic or nationality groups by DNA. To quote Fariborz: People in one country or region have different roots from different parts of the world so we should not use the term of the Origin anymore, it is the concept of the 19th century not 21st.

I don't know if Fariborz is right or not right about removal of the studies or the Origin section of the article, but I don't see how his bringing it up in any way merits any kind of sanction whatsoever. ^Leviv_ich? ! 00:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Well, as far as i can see, using an article's talk page to give his opinion about the article with no source is prohibited. Making battleground comments is prohibited. Edit warring, is prohibited. Need more ? what about this this section title ? I would be curious to know why Fariborz finds offensive for Azerbaijanis to be described as having Iranian origins. Clearly ethno linguistic nationalism.
2. So, according to you, since the sources i cited in the article are Iranians and support an Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis, then they may be dubious ?! So let's remove all non notable (BTW this is yet to be demonstrated and the links you provided do not discredit these sources, they have few cites because Iranian sources are, often, less famous than westerners) English sources for UK-related topics, non notable American sources for US-related topics, non notable French sources for France-related topics, etc ...
3. If this Nat Geo society source is not to be included, then why quoting it on the talk page ? You're quite wrong when you say Fariborz isn't arguing for including the Geno 2.0 article as a source, and this shows, as Wario-Man said above, that you're not familiar with this issue yet. Fariborz claimed to have "tons of references" for his claims and he posts that poor one thinking that it's a high quality source. Did you take a look at it ? i forgot the number of spelling mistakes it contains. Also, it is strongly controversial. Fariborz made his first edit on january 4, 2019 then 16 other edits have been made and not a single of them is actually improving the project, instead, we have WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND contributions. Seriously ?! Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The articles Iranian peoples and Azerbaijanis have sections on origins and genetics, but those are articles about ethnic groups. Iranian Azerbaijanis is an article about a particular ethnic group (Azeris) in a country (Iran). In similar articles, Kurds in Iran, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Armenians, Iranian Turkmen...none have a section about origin, DNA, or whether the ethnic group is "Iranian" or "Kurdish", "Georgian", "Assyrian", etc. Iranian Kazakhs has a section on Origin but it doesn't mention DNA or whether they are "Iranian" or "Kazakh". The suggestion that an Iranian Azeri is Iranian and not Azeri, or Azeri and not Iranian, is surely a controversial one. Seems to me like exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed by editors on a talk page. As for the editor not editing more, my assumption is the editor isn't editing because the first time they posted something on a talk page, it resulted in them being brought to ANI. But it doesn't matter; even an IP editor should be able to post this on a talk page without getting dragged to ANI over it. ^Leviv_ich? ! 02:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

IPs can post what they want (just like any other user), but on one condition (just like any other user too), it should be sourced and verifiable, per WP:EQUAL. Also, your remarks about other articles not having an origin section does not justify to remove sourced content from the Iranian Azerbaijanis article per WP:OTHER. And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: Fariborz did not remove anything. Fariborz posted to the article talk page, and you removed those posts, and then posted here. Are you suggesting WP:RS is required for talk page posts? I do agree it will be helpful to hear from other editors about this. ^Leviv_ich? ! 03:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Just take a look at my above diffs, you continue to misrepresent what happened.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting what happened. The editor has never removed content from an article. The editor has never even edited an article. All the editor has done is post on talk pages. Anyone can see this by looking at their contribs. ^Leviv_ich? ! 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems that you fail to understand that articles’ talk pages are not for posting WP:FORUM, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:SOAP or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT messages. The editor did not provide a single source, he just came up and said « offensive title » with his POV, refused to engage in a constructive discussion since all he did was refuting what the sources say while providing only his POV, made battleground comments on his talk page, edit warred against me and Wario-Man, etc... this is not exactly what i would call « All the editor has done is post on talk pages. », so yes, according to me, you’re actually misrepresenting what he did. But as i said below, since both of you guys oppose a topic ban, then no problem, i’ll drop the stick, but trust me when i say that if Fariborz keeps editing this place, then sooner or later someone else will report him again, just because this guy is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per Levivich. Honestly, back when I first started using Wikipedia, I had no clue what a talk page even was for. Fariborz26 while they are first starting out used it correctly here. User:Fariborz26 deserved a much better welcome than what they received. They clearly are trying their best here (even if their English could use some improvements admittedly). As User:Levivich stated, this is clearly a content issue and not a conduct issue. I find Wikaviani's dismissive attitude towards New Editors to be the most concerning conduct displayed here. User:Wikaviani would be best served by reviewing WP:BITE and avoid such mistakes in the future. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I reported Fariborz here because of his behaviour, not because he's a newby (also, FYI, i consider myself quite a newby too). I'm aware of WP:EQUAL and for your information, i engaged in a discussion with him and provided him some sources showing he was wrong (not really WP:BITE attitude IMO), but while i was providing sources, he was just posting WP:FORUM-like messages, this is why i removed the thread. It looks like a duck to me that Fariborz is a WP:NOTHERE user, but admins are free to sanction me if they think that i'm breaking Wiki rules with this report. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani, you are not breaking any rules that I am aware of. However, it was not in good spirit to delete Fariborz26's contributions to the article's talk page as this violates WP:TPO. As Levivich correctly noted, the material was on topic and should not have been deleted as a result. The secondary example I would include of WP:BITE behavior would be when you wrote this to Levivich: And, with all due respect, you're a 2 months old account and the more i discuss with you, the more i realise that you're not familiar with many Wiki guidelines and policies. Now, i would suggest to let other contributors give their opinion. This is what I mean when I say dismissive behavior. I have seen no indication that Levivich is unfamiliar with WP:GUIDELINES in any respect. If I were to feel this is the case, I would point to the specific guideline that needs review (as I did for you and WP:BITE).

Concerning Fariborz26, we have {{subst:First article}} for a reason. This message or another welcome message would have been much more appropriate for a response to a new user's first set of contributions. This is why I recommended rereading WP:BITE. We all make mistakes, so that is why it is best to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Finally, you are not a new user; you are a rollbacker. Per WP:RBReq, Rollback is not for very new users. If you feel you are not ready for Rollbacker rights, you are free to request an admin disable them for you. I, myself, think you are really doing just fine, but you gotta just go easy on people sometimes. Kindest Regards, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i am a rollbacker, i never said that i'm not ready for it, but i only use this tool to revert clear cases of vandalism, nothing else, therefore, i did not use the rollback tool in this case. what i meant, when i said that i am quite a new user, is that i have many things to learn here, on Wikipedia, not like veteran editors. I cannot agree with you, when you say that Levivich is correct when he says that Fariborz did not break any Wiki rule. As Wario-Man (a veteran editor) said above, Fariborz has battleground mentality, proposes to rewrite some articles he does not like according to his fantasies, posted messages to an article's talk page just to expose his POV, with no source, said that a section of that article is "offensive" just because it describes a reality that he does not like, i hate to say this, but all these are breaches in WP:GUIDELINES (WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS, etc ...). As i said above, it looks like a duck to me that Fariborz is a WP:NOTHERE editor and Wario-Man seems to share my concerns, but if you guys oppose a topic ban, then no problem, i'll drop the stick. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if an indef topic ban sounds not good, admins are, of course, free to choose the relevant sanction (for Fariborz, or, again, for me, if they think that i deserve it). Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn, ready for close? Closer please note the edit summary here indicating the filer is willing to withdraw after discussion (thank you). Fariborz26 hasn't edited for four days, there is no edit war at the article or talk page in question, all is quiet and peaceful. :-) Hopefully if Fariborz brings the issue up again at the article talk page, it will be with a little more calmness and diplomacy, and that'll probably be better received by the other editors. Thanks. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as i said above, no need to continue this, even if i disagree with what both of you say about Fariborz, i drop the stick due to your feedback and already asked for closure. I would like to thank all involved editors for the time they put on it. Whether we disagree or not about something here, the most important is to work together. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5

Shahanshah5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removed a link to "History of Iran" from the History of Islam page and removed a WP:RS reference written by a renowned Iranologist (Alireza Shapour Shahbazi).[23]
• Accused other editors of "Azerbaijanophobia" at Talk:Bahmanyar.[24]
• Tried to label Brill publishers as a "non-reliable publisher" (because Brill sources were putting a halt to his agenda).[25]
• Tried to dispute/remove the Persian origin of the House of Sasan, even though it was literally sourced in the article.[26]-[27]
• Tried to label Bahmanyar, a historic Persian figure, as an "Azerbaijani". No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[28]
• Tried to label Iskander Beg Munshi, a historic Persian writer, as an Azerbaijani. No edit summary/no explanation. Added non-RS source, no page number.[29]
• Tried to label the Baku Khanate as an Azerbaijani entity,[30] even though the sources at Khanates of the Caucasus make it clear that this is not WP:NPOV. I even told him this on numerous occassions.[31]-[32]
• Removed the Shirvanshahs from "Iran" and added it to "Eastern Europe".[33]
• Added anachronistic gibberish to the Antioch article.[34]
• More WP:IDHT.[35]

I issued him a WP:AA2 warning a few weeks ago, to no avail. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment : The reported user seems to have a pro Azerbaijani agenda here, on the English Wikipedia, and also, with all due respect, some WP:CIR issues because of his inability to read and comprehend English properly : [36], [37], etc ... sounds like a typical case of WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A problem with this editor was also reported on my talk page in December: see User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 46#Another concern. If WP:CIR is the verdict then a conventional block might be considered. On the other hand, if it turns out that POV-pushing is the greater problem, a topic ban from WP:AA2 can be an option. The user was notified of this discussion on 6 January and gave a point-by-point response. Unfortunately all his statements were removed by another editor who didn't like the interlinear edits. I'll leave a further note for Shahanshah5. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(The "another concern" thread has been archived to User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_46#Another_concern.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: IMO, and with all due respect for the reported user, i think he has WP:CIR issues and is a POV-pusher. Saying, like he did in his point-by-point answer, that he has tried to add "Azerbaijani" to some articles because he was not experienced enough does not sound like a good faith answer. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This comment shows, one more time, his inability to speak English and his battleground mentality.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, as admin would you tell me that which of my edits can be reason to make me blocked? Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani:, I already introduced my online English certificate on my talk page, but for you I can add it also to here [1]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Honestly, I think Shahanshah5 views WP like a fighting video game. e.g. some users revert and reject his edits but he believes he must win. So he decides to continue his problematic edits or targets some specific topics. Even if we consider his edits as good faith ones, there are some serious issues that can't be ignored: Weak command of English, ignoring WP guidelines and other editors' comments, lack of interest in collaboration, and Obvious nationalistic/irredentist/anachronistic POV. So do you think giving him the second chance would solve those issues? Everything about him proves this case is WP:NOTHERE. But if he promises to change his behavior, then I support a final warning or 6-month block. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Also it seems he does not care about his account. Dropped an inappropriate reply on 2019-01-06[38] and didn't try to rewrite it again or write a proper reply. Seriously what is this?![39] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Query If he made a point-by-point rebuttal it might be helpful to see it. Is there a link that I missed? Can it be copied here?19:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link you asked for.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, I'm interested in the collaboration with every Wiki user (who make edits on historical topics )since I often try to discuss some edits and future edits on talk pages, here is some examples: [1] 2, [2], [3]. I want also add that you should concretize which my edits you mean by saying nationalistic/irredentist.

Section 27

• The link which was inserted in the Iranian identity which was nonsense, but if it wasn't nonsense User talk:LouisAragon could restore the link. But he didn't it, probably, to use it against me one day :) What about that reference, as I already wrote in my edit summary[1], the source that I deleted doesn't mention about Iranian identity, so I deleted it. If my these edits weren't in Wiki policy, it must be proved me by my pro-Iranian colleagues who wish to see me blocked :(
• I never accused anyone on Bahmanyar talk page, but I noticed Azerbaijanophobia to colleague's message where modern Azerbaijani irrendist political ideology is using as an argument on historical person's talkin page. @LouisAragon:, Let's have a some flashbacks from it:

"Non-RS nonsense. These are the same "historians" who claim that Iran and Armenia are "ancient Turkic lands", and that anything from Derbent to Urmia, Zanjan, to Kars etc is part of "Bütöv Azərbaycan" that used to exist "since times immemorial". No self respecting Western historian takes these "books" serious. Azerbaijani (SSR and post 1991) and Tsarist/Soviet Russian sources are mostly packed with agenda-loaded propaganda, refuted/debunked by leading scholars in the West. Here's an example.[3] The same thing goes for many Armenian and Georgian sources of the Soviet era. They should all be avoided."

I gave him an answer on the same way, which now I think wasn't needed to me and to the encyclopedia. But I think it's ok, because at that time I wasn't experienced.

• I'm curious that why @LouisAragon: says that I labelled Brill as non-reliable while I said that it's not high reliable source[1]. In addition, I gave there two publisher rankings which proves my words about Brill's source.
• My edits on Bahmanyar and Iskander Beg Munshi pages were one of my first edits which weren't experienced.
• Baku Khanate ethnically is an Azerbaijani khanate which house was Bakhikanovs of, but unfortunately I forgot saying it to Louis Aragon when we had a discussion on my talk page.
• The states on this page are groupped by a geographical criteria. So Shirvanshahs as the state which was on modern Azerbaijani territories, should be in the Eastern Europe section, so I added it to list of Eastern European states.
• My edits on Antioch and Quba Khanate pages weren't carefully, I understand it. Shahanshah5 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

First, this complaint is very hard to follow. Second, this looks like a content dispute. 2600:100F:B104:1606:FC9F:90E:6DC4:B70E (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
I think its a response to the ANI section WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shahanshah5. Possibly should be moved there? Curdle (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Moved. Qualitist (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Thank. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

1)What Shahanshah5 links to is a Ranking system by SENSE. Nowhere on this page does it state Brill is an unreliable, less reliable or even that "it's not high reliable source". Yet again, Shahanshah5 has shown their inability to read and comprehend what is written in English. Here is the SENSE documentation and organization page. "Where it states:Please note that the WASS-SENSE ranking list of publishers has been set up for the WASS and SENSE Dutch Graduate Schools only. The list is based on the publishing houses used by our researchers. It should not be used by other institutes."
This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history. This is POV pushing at its finest.
2)Shahanshah5 has on numerous occasions added information that is poorly written[40] and/or makes no sense. Clear case of Wikipedia:CIR.
3)Shahanshah5 has made battleground comments. Accusation of racism, labeling editors that do not agree with his illegible, nonsensical edits as "pro-Iranian colleagues"
4)Refusal to get the point.[41] Shahanshah5 was in such a hurry to push their POV, they either didn't or couldn't comprehend that the book they were using for a source, also supported the information they were deleting!! And when told this, they still ignored what I said and then blamed me for their lack of compentence in English!
I see no reason to allow this to continue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(1), SENSE documentatation [1] where it writes that A: Refereed book publications published by the world top of publishers'B: Refereed book publications published by the world’s semi-top of publishers'? Doesn't the A rated means the being high rated source? And how B rated source the Brill can be as high rated? Oh, and checked Brill also on this Wiki page where were the lists of the top publishers but I didn't notice notice there the name of Brill. And what about it "This attempt to blacken a quality academic publishing house was in response to Brill publishing a review that highlighted the Azerbaijani government's involvement in rewriting Azerbaijani history", why don't you give at least two publisher rankings that Brill is the A rated?

(3)I think you're a little bit late with the Bahmanyar talk page, so I already answered to it on ANI. What about the second accusing, hm, I had thought users here can be honest since @Wikaviani: and @Wario-Man: labelled my edits as the pro-Azerbaijani and nationalistic/irredentist. So I had thought I also should be honest and said about the POV of some my colleagues.

(4)I already answered about Quba Khanate here. What about the second deal of "blamed me for their lack of compentence in English", it's not so succesfull manipulating over meaning of my sentence were I citated "I think you didn't fix these sentence on those articles to get another evidence against me :)" You didn't revert my edit and at least didn't fix my sentences(which was on high RS source) until your reporting of me to the admin. But after reporting the admin, when you done your work you reverted my edits [1], [2]. Shahanshah5 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:, aren't you going to answer my demand about your accusing me on this my edit? Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world for Shahanshah5. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my above comment and evidences provided by involved users. 6-month topic ban will show us if he's WP:HTBAE or not. Also posting a final warning on his talk page is necessary in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above evidences and comments.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support The evidence above shows that Shahanshah5 is not capable of working collaboratively or obeying Wikipedia's policies on NPOV and reliable sources when writing about these topics. --Jayron32 17:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Frankly, I think the above shows grounds for a CIR block, but let's start gently and see if things improve. Blocks are cheap and easy, gaining editors less so. GoldenRing (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I kinda agree with Goldenring, but yes, start with a topic ban- possibly if the editor avoids an area they seem to have strong views on, they can slow down and learn a bit more about collaboration, NPOV, AGF and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Goldenring there are grounds for a CIR block. A 6-month topic ban will negate the disruption, not sure how this will fix CIR issues or as Jayron notes, reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per GoldenRing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'll support a 6-month topic ban since that is what's on the table, but actually I don't much believe in them. It's too easy to wait out a time-limited ban without editing, learn nothing, and then come back with all the old problems intact. I'd much prefer an indefinite topic ban, to be appealed no sooner than in 6 months, where the appeal will only be received favorably if it's believable and the editing on other subjects (and on sister projects!) shows progress. (I'm good with a CIR block too.) Bishonen | talk 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC).

• I could also certainly support an indefinite ban, but would like to see them given at least some chance before we indef them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support for reasons given above --AndInFirstPlace 03:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note to closer: The above editor has been here for 5 days, and already has been blocked twice. He doesn't know sh*t from Shinola about Wikipedia, and shows it in their every edit (eg. they thought admins were assigned to articles, and filed an RfA so they could become the admin for an article they were editing, and was in multiple disputes about; see #User:AndInFirstPlace below for more). Their !vote here should be disregarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Striking AndInFirstPlace from the above discussion on grounds that an SPI confirms he has used multiple accounts abusively. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I also have my doubts about fixed-term topic bans, as it is an editor's problematic approach to controversial subjects that needs to change and not their age, but I'll support this as it's what's being proposed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Elaboration on Topic ban proposal

I was a bit ambivalent about the efficacy of 6 month topic ban, but reluctant to support a straight out CIR indef for a relatively new user. I would be more than happy to support something along the lines of what Bishonen suggested; ie topic ban appealable in 6 months, but only if accompanied by evidence that Shahanshah5 has genuinely learned, understood and put into practice Wikipedia policy in regards to collaboration, NPOV, and reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 requesting interaction ban with Czar.

Apologies for the length of this. I tried to be as succinct as possible, but this ANI has been 18 months in the making. I've even omited several other incidents, but what I've written below should be sufficent in determining whether my request for a mutual interaction ban with Czar would be appropriate. If not, I can expand where necessary.

Background

This entire incident resolves around the nomination of Jill Valentine for Featured Article Candidate. After reading through the first and second FACs (which I nominally contributed to), as well as the subsequent peer review (which I did not contribute to, but Czar was a major participant in; it recast the article almost entirely, and was sufficiently hostile, badgering and argumentative for the original nominator to abandon the article), I spent several weeks in my sandbox and on main-space working on Jill Valentine, making good-faith attempts to address every criticism ever levelled against it by every previous commentator (especially any item relating to sexism). Believing all those issues resolved, I renominated the article at FAC in May 2018. An FAC image reviewer – who determined that one image had an issue with its FUR, but otherwise the images used were appropriate (i.e., had "contextual significance") – was the only person to comment before Czar appeared. Despite this, Czar then began edit-warring over the use of a separate image. That FAC was closed on the basis of Czar's opposition, with the suggestion that I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again." I then spent the next 5 months contacting all 21 previous reviewers, 17 of who responded.

Over the course of those 5 months, an 8-week discussion with Czar was initiated on Jill's talk page. Long story short, that discussion ended up being a continuation of the openly hostile and aggressive tone of the peer review, linked to in 'Background'. Even when it was pointed out to him that he was "reviewing" an older ID of the article, he responded with "but the point similarly applies to instances like...", while going on to quantify his original complaint with completely unrelated points. Another one of his points, beginning "It's a jarring time warp to go from 1996 to 2014 and back again (1998)", actually only developed as a result of a request I'd received from one of those 17 editors—i.e., genuine consensus building. But when the sentence he was complaining about was moved to another section of the article, he complained that "This introduces other problems. This R&L ¶ now reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole", which stinks of a user holding their own opinion above all others. Furthermore, Czar never accepted a single argument I put forward, and just seemed to dig his heels in even further; the most productive portion of his review consisted of me removing author names from prose, which I happily did, on all but one occasion: Lisa Foiles, because I argued she was a notable writer. It ended up being the only thing I thought I convinced him of during that entire 8-week discussion. Instead, he went on to redirect Foiles' article without consensus. I know there's a lot in this paragraph, and I apologise that there aren't as many diffs as I'd like, but Czar tends not to time-stamp his responses. Though I was involved in the discussion directly, even I can't find the continuation of the discussion he ended with "Yes, see below c".

With that talk page discussion at an impasse, I renominated the article at FAC. This latest FAC attracted the participation of several previous reviewers, who all supported, except Czar. Many of the points he raised there were simply continuations of the arguments I highlighted here in the previous paragraph. He was also dishonest about his role in the peer review. When it was pointed out by another user that the FAC template requires "significant contributors to [an] article" to indicate their involvement prior to commenting, he responded "Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor", which was fundamentally untrue. Entire swathes of the article were completely re-composed during the 2-month peer review. He additionally labelled my attempts at establishing consensus by contacting previous reviewers over that 5 month period as disingenuous, arguing that "Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted", despite 17 of those 21 users responding. That FAC was closed/not promoted, primarily as a result of Czar claiming that "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization [in the Reception & Legacy section] is nonsensical."

With this in mind, I then contacted Czar via his talk page, requesting his assistance in sorting out any alleged organisational issues in R&L once and for all via a draft page I'd specifically created. Between the 8-week talk page discussion and him subsequently labelling my attempts to rectify his concerns "inadequate", I thought this was the way to go. Instead, he aggressively refused this request, posting another round of badgering, once again claiming that the moving of a single sentence to another paragraph introduced a multitude of other problems, while calling me "openly hostile".

My purpose in requesting an interaction ban is to allow me to non-combatively work on gaining consensus for Jill Valentine, with both old and new reviewers. My interactions with Czar on this article have gone beyond the point of a mere content dispute. This is never-ending, self-contradicting badgering from an uncollaborative editor, and a direct continuation of the hostility and aggression found in the previous peer review. He has genuinely been the most disruptive and downright insulting user I've ever come across on Wikipedia. Plus, his latest response to me doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he has left his tendentious editing behaviour behind, with regards to Foiles' article. Many of his criticisms have been so intentionally vague that I believe no user could ever resolve them, regardless of the extent anyone attempts to; you fix one alleged problem only to be greeted by another, and then another, and then eventually you're told that something you did several weeks before was "inadequate". His criticisms all seem purposefully designed to convince me that Jill Valentine would never meet the FA criteria, which isn't an especially collaborative mindset to have adopted, but it's indicative of a user who only came to interact with Jill's FACs via this hostile discussion with the previous nominator. There has been no attempt whatsoever on his part to compromise or build consensus ever since, and in fact he continues to argue over matters I've already responded to.

Once again, sorry for the length of this ANI, but there's an 18-month history here which I tried my best to adequately and succinctly explain. I'd appreciate any help in this matter, because I really can't cope with this user any more. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose two-way iban after reviewing the lengthy history of the article Jill Valentine, about a female video game character (not usually a controversial area). After going through GAN1 (2012), GAN2 (2013), GAN3 (2015), PR1 (May 2017), and GOCE (June 2017)...

• FAC1 (Aug 2017), at which one editor (not involved here) wrote:

FAC1 Comment

The article uses the word "hottest" seven times (in one paragraph); "sexy/sexier/sexiest" seven times; "babe" five times; "attractive" four times; "beauty/beautiful" three times; "hottie" twice; "vixen" twice; "gorgeous" once; "cock teasing" once; "slutty" once; and "douche bag's girlfriend"...Sexist language and trivia. The Cultural impact section as nominated was a long quote farm and very offensive. It called her a "cock tease", "no dick and a set of tits", a "douche bag's girlfriend", "slutty", a "vixen", and, in one paragraph, "hottest" seven times. It compared her to other female characters and asked "who would you rather?". It was also full of trivia: e.g. that she was 26th of 50 hottest game babes.

Homeostasis07 (not the nom at this point) responded here, and the FAC coordinator responded to that response in the same thread. FAC1 was closed with the comment: We all need to remember that an article will not be promoted without the consensus of reviewers, not just how many supports there are...I would recommend working with the reviewers here to achieve a consensus of what should be in the article...the nominator should bear in mind that the same issues could arise again at the next FAC; just because a few editors disagree with the issues raised here does not mean that they can be ignored in a FAC.

• FAC2 (Oct 2017) closing comment: The fact of the matter is that if/when this is renominated, the same discussion will take place over these issues, and unless there is a consensus of reviewers that this article meets the FA criteria, it will not be promoted; there is clearly no such consensus at the moment but one may be achieved at PR, given time and away from the FAC spotlight. Any future FAC will need to run for at least two weeks (so that quick, pile-on supports do not derail the review) and, as the nominator did this time, all those who opposed should be informed and invited to comment (as should all those who supported).
• PR2 (Nov 2017) was closed by the nom, after posting a departure notice on the article's talk page.
• FAC3 (May 2018) was nominated by Homeostasis, who wrote ...I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. Czar wrote: Bad idea. This is a common courtesy and better done before starting another nom... The closer wrote: Sorry, but I'm going to close this as it's clear that open issues have not been resolved from the last FAC. The last peer review seems to have been closed in frustration with issues still on the table. FAC is not a venue for bringing something up to standard. I'd advise open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating this article again.
• Conversations took place on Czar's talk page, Part 2, and Part 3 (including talk-page-watcher comment: ...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs.)
• FAC4 (Dec 2018) was nom'd by Homeostasis with: ...A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available on this FAC's talk page...Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here: followed by five usernames, four of whom had voted support at a previous FAC and one participated at PR (seems legit). Closer's comment: ...I think Czar's feedback here and on the article Talk page are good exemplars of our operational concept of providing broad valid feedback with examples. I'd have to see a lot more support that indicates explicit examination of the article against 1a and the general themes in the article before I'd be comfortable promoting over the existing opposition.
• Conversation on FAC4 closer's talk page
• Conversation Part 4 on Czar's talk page (I happened to post the next thread on this talk page, which is how I saw this; otherwise I'm not involved.)

After reviewing the above, particularly "Part 3" and "Part 4" of the conversations on Czar's talk page, I oppose a two-way interaction ban, as I do not believe it will effectively address the issues. Looking forward to reading others' thoughts. ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue regarding sexism is moot to this ANI, since FACs 1 and 2, as well as PR2 [all pre-dating my first nomination, FAC3], resolved this. My nominating statement from FAC3 has been taken somewhat out of context here. It continued: "Previous FACs have led to this nomination becoming a loaded issue – to say the least – for some, so I've decided against contacting any and all prior reviewers, whether they were positive or negative. If requested, by FAC coordinators, I wouldn't have a problem with informing everyone that I've renominated it. ... Plus, I think fresh eyes all around may make FAC3 a much more beneficial experience." The quote "...this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs." relates to a separate issue, which I decided against mentioning here because it's bound to get messy: I'd received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library, in which an administrator allegedly referred to me as a "scumbag" and "sexist asshole" and all sorts of other things. Also, the user who wrote this quoted text was not a "talk-page-watcher", but was involved in the first two FACs and perhaps the largest contributor to PR2. And as I explained in 'Background', FAC3 was closed with the suggestion I "open dialog with previous reviewers before nominating the article again", so the implication that my actions could be considered canvassing is unwarranted.

I would like to believe that there's a possibility of addressing any of Czar's complaints to a point where he no longer felt the need to constantly object, but my experience thus far hasn't left me with the impression that even a remote possibility of that happening exists. As diffs in my post above illustrate, he's been hostile, uncollaborative and tendentious. I've tried – for over 12 weeks at this point – to address his concerns, but they just keep coming and changing, which indicates badgering. I've not taken the decision to bring this to ANI lightly, but it's gotten to a point where I feel like there's no other option. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note here, to avoid confusion, that when Homeostasis07 says they "received a series of "poison-pen" e-mails from someone at the Wikipedia Library", I believe this is tangential to the primary issue being raised and - to the best of my knowledge and understanding of the situation - no one who works on the Wikipedia Library project, whether as WMF staff or as a volunteer coordinator, has been sending harassing emails, except to forward some harassment they received to Homeostasis such that they would be aware of it. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this here, Sam. I have to admit, my heart skipped a beat when I saw User:Levivich quote something related to the e-mails. That's an issue for either the Trust and Safety team, as you previously suggested, or maybe even RfO. It's certainly not appropriate for such a public forum as ANI, in any case. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I did not say anything about an email in my comments here; you introduced that detail. I quoted from a talk page discussion from last month in which SlimVirgin wrote Homeostasis07, this is a serious allegation, and it implicates the three admins who opposed the Valentine FACs: Ealdgyth, Czar and myself. (courtesy pings), which I felt relevant because your report here against Czar mentioned the Valentine FAC but apparently made no mention of the recent (SV's words) "serious allegation" you made against Czar. My apologies if any of what I've written here is inappropriate. I'd ask any admin reading this to please remove or redact anything that I should not have written (or tell me and I will delete it myself). Thank you. ^Leviv_ich? ! 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, you didn't refer to any e-mails. But you quoted from this talk page discussion (i.e., "serious allegation"), a conversation which related to me receiving a multitude of harassing and insulting e-mails from a Wikipedia administrator, forwarded by a volunteer at the Wikipedia Library project, which doesn't especially relate to this ANI. Like I said, this ANI – and the actions of a multitude of users – has been 18 months in the making. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really don't want to be here, but I think we've reached a point where we need to evaluate whether or not he needs to be sanctioned. For those unaware, Born2cycle was indefinitely blocked by Dennis Brown for what I can only classify as long-term disruption in the RM area (see this AE thread started by me.) He was then unblocked without any discussion. After his unblock, a new AE thread was filed by Black Kite due to continued disruption in the RM area after being as unblocked (see thread.) It was closed as being outside of AE action, and nothing was brought to ARCA or ANI afterwards.

B2C is now fixating on Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, arguing that BLPCRIME should not apply if someone has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted and that if sources believe someone is a murderer without a conviction based on a confession, we should call them a killer and say that they killed someone. That is of course a content dispute, but given my history with B2C (see this user talk thread), I felt that alerting them to the BLP discretionary sanctions was appropriate in case it became needed on the kidnapping article. I gave him the alert without comment, and it clearly stated that it was simply informational. His response was to revert me calling me a jerk. I then explained to him why I alerted him: he'd never had a BLP alert, and they need to be given if DS is in effect and may be needed because of conflict. He then responded by calling me unplesant. He then further clarified by accusing me of incivility, apparently for letting him know that BLP sanctions existed.

While I normally have pretty thick skin, I think what we have here is a long-term tendentious editor, who really never should have been unblocked to begin with given the clear consensus for a block at AE the first time, who knows how the AE system works, and responds to people following it with incivility and aspersions. On the whole, I think he's pretty clearly a net negative to the project and think he should be blocked again, but I'm obviously involved, so I'm bringing it to the community to discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony Ballioni that the unblocking of Born2Cycle, a long-term tendentious editor, should never have taken place. AGF and hope springs eternal and all that, but there is nothing in B2C's long history to indicate that there was any possibility that they were going to change their ways. Their modus operandi is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia's working model, and problems such as Tony Ballioni brings up here will continue as long as he is allowed to keep editing. I strongly suggest that the community consider a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• The issue can be seen here and at WT:BLP. TonyBallioni should not need to work this hard when pointing out the obvious—there is no reason to identify a relatively unknown person as a killer and child kidnapper before a court conviction. Previous disputes with B2C show they are impervious to other's views and will continue pushing forever. Unless someone can point to major redeeming features an indef would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just asked the question on a talk page and at least one person generally agreed with my point. So I’m in a civil short talk page discussion about a BLP issue/question that started a few hours ago and is essentially over already, and yet we’re here? Confused... —В²C ☎ 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Just noting for everyone else that the above as this post on my talk is virtually identical to your response the last time I alerted the community to your long-term disruption. This is either a case of just not getting it, intentional obliviousness to how others perceive you, or lack of competence. In any of these cases, the only option is a site ban or indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so I’m consistent. Is that a crime now too? I’m equally bewildered this time as last time as to why anyone would start an AN/I without first at least trying to work it out with the other. —В²C ☎ 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I did try to work it out with you, I explained that DS alerts are mandatory, and you responded with personal attacks and aspersions. Given my past interactions with you, I decided that nothing more was going to come of discussion unless the community was alerted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I’m beginning to sense your long-standing prejudices about me, largely based on misunderstanding, inhibit our ability to communicate and work together effectively. I’m sad that you’re so quick to write me, or anyone else, off. I’m going to continue working on improving the encyclopedia where I can. Good luck to you. —В²C ☎ 07:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Summoned the unblocking admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• This member of the community has lost all patience with B2C and his complete inability to accept that any view other than his own could even be a legitimate interpretation of policy. The hours of everyone else's time that B2C has wasted with his crusades would be hard to count. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, B2C appears to have said (paraphrasing) "I disagree, but am willing to drop it", a day before Tony started this thread. We do not block editors for having different opinions. I am tired of saying it, but we are not the Thought Police. If you can give me one disruptive edit (as opposed to describing Tony as a "jerk" and "unpleasant", which is not on but is not cause for a site ban), I'll change my mind. I don't see edit warring to restore his (ludicrous and incorrect) perspective on the topic, I see one edit, reverted by another editor, and then discussion on the talk page. Fish+Karate 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate, as a note, he did not post that note until I had already opened this ANI thread.

On the issue here is as Guy points out, there is a long-term trend of B2C going on endless crusades to enforce his view on what is Right (tm) (see Sarah Jane Brown and Yogurt.) This had not reached that stage yet, but was going there by all indications, and then he decided to resort to petty name calling after being given a DS alert it was clear nothing was going to be accomplished either at the talk page or on his talk page.

I’m not trying to censor someone: I’m raising the case of someone who is simply unable to work in a collaborative environment. This is early in the process this time but as has been pointed out at both AE threads and above, this is a disruptive editor who doesn’t quit until he gets his way (or on the flip side, is looking at a serious chance of sanctions.) The community shouldn’t be forced into these choices every time he has a new fixation: letting him win, arguing endlessly, or seeking sanctions. That is disruptive, and when taken as a trend over years is enough for an indef imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're right, my bad, I looked at the wrong date. I've struck that bit out accordingly. B2C has, though, in this instance, agreed to drop it (or said he will). As all the issues seem to be with BLP, or a significant misreading thereof, would a topic ban from BLPs work? I'm always keen to try and retain editors in some way unless they become a complete and total negative. Fish+Karate 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The thing I was thinking of as an alternative to an indef last night was a “1 comment per page in the Talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces per 24 hours” restriction. There are questions as to if we’d want that. I suppose my reason for saying they should go back to being blocked is that they clearly learned nothing from their last block, when the community had already indicated that it had lost its patience with B2C, and now he’s managed to move from RMs to BLPCRIME, which shows it isn’t just a problem with moves. Yes, he’s agreed to drop this thing after being brought to ANI, but the question is whether or not he’ll agree to drop the next one, or the one after that, or that... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. We should try to assume good faith, though (WP:PACT notwithstanding), and hope he's learning (albeit slowly). Fish+Karate 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Slowly? He's been here for just shy of 14 years and he has over 27,000 edits. How much time do you think he should be given to bring himself into alignment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact this time he agreed to let the matter drop suggests to me one is never too old to learn. Fish+Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Fish and karate: "a complete and total negative" is not the correct standard. Rather, it is whether they are a net asset or detriment to the project. By your standard, all 27K of the user's edits would have to be problematic, which I can't imagine ever happening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you take it completely literally, then yes, well done. That wasn't really what I meant, though; let's go with "a significant net negative" then. Fish+Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• keep, b2c has transcended annoying user status, or cautionary tale of misspent focus, he is an unimplacable, irrepressible, and irreplaceable archetype. cygnis insignis 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I do sometimes tend towards thinking that might be a little bit unconventional or out-of-the-box. I feel some of you do not recognize and appreciate that, and I’m being punished for it. This BLPCRIME discussion is a perfect example. I made one edit that was reverted and then I took it to the article’s talk page where the broader issue was uncovered (wording/reasoning at BLPCRIME), so I raised the question at the policy talk page where I think there is a reasonable and self-explanatory discussion, that also spilled back to the article’s talk page. Where exactly is the problem? When consensus changes on WP, isn’t it exactly through discussions like these? If anyone else did what I did, would they have been taken to AN/I? Seriously consider that, please. I hate to pull the persecution card, but I do feel persecuted here. In fact, everything was going reasonably until I decided to weigh in on another dispute that TonyBallioni was involved in regarding adding a link to the See Also section of the same Kidnapping of Jayme Closs article. I happened to agree with the other user and I think TonyBallioni took it personally. That’s when he shocked me with the BLP notice on my talk page (but not on the other user’s talk page - speaking of feeling persecuted) and then, instead of trying to work it out on my talk page, it quickly escalated to here. This filing did prompt some discussion on my and TonyBallioni’s user talk pages that I do feel has been productive, but filing this ANI was not necessary to cause that to occur. —-В²C ☎ 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I make no suggestion about what action (if any) to take this time around because I wasn't directly involved in the current cycle and haven't pored through all the relevant posts. I just note that there's an apparent pattern that has repeated through several cycles over a number of years: stick-like behavior that toes up to the line of tolerability, sometimes crosses it, sometimes leads to some kind of sanction, followed by a period of comparative quiet, and then a gradual return to the original behavior. Insofar as Born2cycle has many years of experience and a good understanding of many guidelines and policies, his input is beneficial — but that benefit is often offset by his insistence on certain interpretations/applications of policy that are at odds with community consensus, his persistent advocacy for those views to an extent and volume that can be considered tendentious, and a determination to prevail through persistence rather than to accept compromise and move on to other areas. That's just my view based on what I've observed, and I don't know the best solution, but I do agree that it is a concern. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• A few years ago В²C and I were in a bitter dispute over an article title issue, and while I've noted any time since that I've seen this come up that В²C does tend to badger and stonewall and relitigate and all the other tendentious behaviours until they get their way or are sanctioned (and so I endorse those observations in this thread) I have never felt along the way that this rises to the level of a site ban. Frankly В²C is a valuable resource in terms of interpretation and criticism of policy, sometimes on very contentious issues. On the present dispute over whether BLPCRIME should apply to someone who has admitted to but not been formally convicted of a crime, there's probably a point to be made there. If the community feels that a sanction is required I recommend it be something which allows them to still participate here. I don't have time today to suggest something so I'm just leaving this here as a comment.

We should very likely also rethink our DS notification guidelines. Being warned by an administrator that you're in a dispute with that administrators have authorization to unilaterally dole out sanctions on a topic is an inherently belligerent gesture even if not so intended (and I'm not suggesting that was Tony's intent), almost rising to the level of using administrative tools to win a dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's certainly how it felt and what escalated this particular discussion into a dispute, unnecessarily in my view. I would hope all administrators involved in discussions know it's not prudent to dole out such warnings to other discussion participants themselves, but, if appropriate, ask an uninvolved admin to do so, for precisely these reasons. Being involved they may be biased and so asking an uninvolved admin to take a look is an appropriate level of precaution. I would think that would be standard practice for admins. --В²C ☎ 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I strongly disagree that an admin giving out a DS alert as a normal editor comes anywhere near tool misuse: the template clearly says it implies no wrongdoing at the time, it is not an administrative action as anyone can hand it out, and I have never once taken any action in regards to B2C precisely because I am involved with him. Simply being an admin does not mean that people you are in a content dispute with don’t get to be notified of DS by you. It means that the admin doesn’t get to use them. I think B2C should be sure banned, or at the very least restricted so his unique form of disruption isn’t allowed to continue, but I have never once abused the tools with regards to him and have always asked the community or other administrators to take action. Comparing following the policy to the letter on how to deal with an entrenched disruptive editor who you are involved with really shouldn’t be competed to tool abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how delivering the DS alert is tool misuse since as noted anyone can issue them (including non-admins). The only requirement is that involved admins cannot impose sanctions themselves (which Tony hasn't). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I don't mean to suggest you did anything wrong and I probably misspoke with my comparison to tool misuse; what I'm saying is that the DS alert process itself is sub-par. Of course anyone can pass an alert to anyone else, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, excepting that you may not alert an editor who has already been alerted within the past year. But by their nature, the alerts are only ever issued in the midst of conflict. I mean, sure, the text of the alert reads "this is just a message for your information" but the action implies "I'm getting my ducks in a row so that a Bad Thing will happen if you don't immediately concede". I apologize for implying that you intended any of this, that's just my general feel for how the alerts are commonly interpreted. Anyway that issue is kind of tangential to this thread, but if you want to chat about it you know how to find my talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am an editor like B2C who has a large interest in page titling and page moving. While I would definitely oppose to B2C being banned altogether in RM discussion and similar activity, due to the fact that they clearly have a vast interest in this area and can bring a net benefit. I don't however oppose to some lesser ban of B2C, like no closing RM discussions (this was supported by several editors) and no editing policy talk pages (since that appears to be somewhat what this is about). I don't know enough about the BLPCRIME issue to make any comments about it specifically so I'll duck out otherwise there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I stand by my RM closes. I have had hardly any complaints, no more than average for RM closers, I'm sure. Not saying there aren't one or two questionable exceptions, like with most any other closer. I mostly help out with non-controversial ones anyway. Do you perceive a problem with my closes? What? --В²C ☎ 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I personally don't have a problem with you're closes but I am aware that several other editors do (I think you have had more complaints than most closers, though I do see that many have been from people who frequently disagree with you) and that a RM closure and policy discussion ban would at least be a better outcome than a full RM ban. I'm not saying that I support that you are given a RM closure and policy discussion ban but I don't oppose to it based on the concerns of multiple editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your support. We've had our differences too, but have worked them out amicably, I think. Yes? Please don't pile on because a few others who were not able to do so are blowing the wind in a certain direction. If you look at what they're complaining about you'll see that I'm not doing anything different from others, as you already know. A good example is in that AE discussion started by Black Kite linked at the top of this discussion. See my statement there in which I point though I was persecuted for saying too much in a particular discussion, several others said much more. But I'm the one who is "tendentious"? Why me? These are the kinds of things I'm persecuted for. It's really unfair. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes we have indeed managed to work things out, despite sometimes having different views (mainly on long-term significance and ASTONISH). Remember that I'm not supporting anything, I would much prefer to oppose to any restrictions but I can't ignore the concerns of others, which I don't think are entirely invalid. Please continue to participate in page titling discussions etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Crouch, Swale: I think the idea of a ban on closing RM discussions would probably be worthwhile, for a variety of reasons. There's a general principle that closures should be undertaken only by someone who's neutral to the debate; someone without a horse in the race, so to speak. B2C devotes nearly all his time either to specific RMs or to matters of titling policy. The fact that he has a very long history of firmly advocating for his own unique interpretations of such policies as the only acceptable ones, often in ways that have led to disruption and sanctions, does unfortunately raise the question of impartiality in most any closing. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• * First of all let's consider that this is an editor that doesn't really contribute much to an encyclopedia - They have 27,000 edits, of which only 9% are in mainspace, of which most are related to page they've been involved in moving or otherwise discussing. 75% are to talk pages, mostly involved in arguing and/or discussing page moves. Frankly, B2C should never have been unblocked without a community discussion in the first place - it was a utterly terrible unblock given the persistent disruption in the RM area since (see the AE filing linked in the opening paragraph) - however that is now past history. At the very least, however, he should be barred from closing Requested Moves (there was consensus for that in the first place), and if he has moved onto causing issues (especially BLP related ones) at policy pages, then that needs to be looked at as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57::18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • We don't all contribute in the same way. Because of my interest in title stability on WP (see my user page and FAQ), I tend to get involved in controversial matters about titles which necessitates many (some long) discussions on talk pages to develop consensus (that's how consensus is developed on WP). That's why so much of my activity is on talk pages working this stuff out. I was recently thanked for a good typical example of this; see Talk:University_of_Klagenfurt#Requested_move_26_December_2018. That some of you choose to persecute me for this approach while others are sending me wikilove notes for it, is disappointing. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I make no comment about when/how B2C was unblocked being correct but I would dispute Black Kite's statement that User:wbm1058 "unilaterally unblocked B2C", the unblock was discussed at User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14 where it appears several editors favoured unblocking B2C (though apparently with restrictions). I would agree that wbm105 may have been better off posting at AN or asking the blocking admin/AE filer though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I'm involved here since I unblocked B2C and have been pinged; frankly I'm annoyed at having to look into his edits again so soon. A distraction from an otherwise productive day for me. I can't really say much more before I read all through this, but two points. (1) SMcCandlish's comments on B2C's talk prompted me to unblock, so I'm pinging them now, in case they wish to review the current drama and add input. (2) I count 15 B2C signatures on Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs – I think you're over your quota there. You should realize that article is running on the center rail; please take some time out to tend to outside-rail maintenance where you have much less risk for receiving electric shocks. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're annoyed? Sorry about that, but imagine how I feel! The discussion at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs has nothing to do with titles. I'm not sure what quota you're referring to. As to my 26 talk page edits, there are several of us who are working on that article, and discussing various issues as we go. Yes, I have 26 Talk page edits. Joseph A. Spadaro has 40. TonyBallioni has 12. I have 17 edits on the main article also. I don't think that's such an unusual ratio for main/talk article edits considering the care put into a current event article with BLP considerations. Ballioni is 4 main/12 talk, for example. My question: How is anything I'm doing wrong or problematic by any reasonable standard, much less warranting an AN/I? --В²C ☎ 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Still reading through this (not that much fun, so bear with me please) but one initial comment. Template:Ivory messagebox (changed to |bg=#E5F8FF) is documented as for use in system messages. Personally I don't care to see it being used on user pages for this purpose. The notification about ArbCom sanctions can be delivered without using a loud colorful message box with exclamation point icon and Important Notice section header that will draw the attention of any passerby that visits the user's talk page. Giving the notice in a more "friendly manner" may not have prompted the kind of response it got. I'd prefer sending the message without bothering to use a template. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Um... wbm1058 ... the DS template isn't the problem here. The behavior of Born2Cycle is, and your unilateral unblock of them wasn't in the least helpful. Please take ownership of enabling this problematic editor to keep disrupting the community -- a situation you could alleviate by re-instating Dennis Brown's block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not to pile on, but this is exactly why it isn't good for an admin to unilaterally unblock someone after there was a community discussion and sanction. I did the original block and I was already very familiar with B2C (for a few years), and not every reason for the block was spelled out in that AE discussion. I did the block as outside AE to make it easier for him to get unblocked, but not to be unilaterally unblocked without discussion. The unblock was a mistake; perhaps an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless and B2C had not even requested to be unblocked, so technically, my admin action of blocking was a revert, which is a different animal altogether. B2C is not an unlikable person, or some ogre that sets out to wreck the place, but there exists some peculiar habits that are disruptive to the project on the whole. I don't think it is intentional but it doesn't matter. Having a lack of self control that bleeds into disruption, is still disruption. I haven't been very active since the unblock, so I can't speak to the recent behavior, but I'm not shocked that we are back here, wasting words discussion it. As for what to do now, I'm not up to pouring through diffs. I will leave that to the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• For a current example of how my friends hold my behavior to unfair madeup standards, see User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. Why do I have to endure such harassment? —В²C ☎ 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• By the way, and not to excuse the inappropriateness of the behavior, but just to point out I'm not the only one to do it, though probably the only one to be taken to AN/I for it, here is another example of someone referring to a poster of a discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of an experienced editor as a "jerk" [42]. In other words, another example of me being held to standards others are not held to, by those who are biased against with me due to a history of disagreeing with me. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, I will note that I have no long term history with В²C, I only had one long interaction with В²C a month back over an RM/MRV discussion. I appreciate his contributions but dislike his conduct with others on the talk pages. I have been watching this discussion and В²C's conduct during this thread. TonyBallioni has proposed a solution, but it seems people are divided if it will solve the problem or not. Nevertheless, people are unanimous in their thoughts that В²C's conduct has been problematic. While I was hoping that В²C will accept the concern raised, acknowledge it and propose self improvements. That should have been the ideal closure for both В²C's and community's benefit. Instead lately all I have seen is В²C playing victim card here, for example, his lines right above this comment and on his talk page where in his edit summary [43] he has noted that, "Removing factually incorrect (referenced AN/I isn't even about RMs or titles) persecution statement from person biased against me due to a long history of disagreeing with me". The real problem here is that the person concerned is not even acknowledging the problem, and instead pointing fingers over others and calling them biased.

During my interaction with В²C over the RM discussion of Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and subsequent Move review I was really appalled by his behavior towards everyone who opposed his view point, and especially his conduct towards the closing admin ErikHaugen which can only be described as "'harassment' of Erik" for Erik's perfectly valid closure, simply because B2c wanted to close the RM discussion in way that differed with, how Erik had closed it. During the MRV discussion, SmokeyJoe suggested В²C on his talk page to "dial it down", saying [44] "Erik does not deserve this grief". The harassment was so much, that even ErikHaugen (who I guess is a cool tempered admin) had to put up a question [45] on В²C's talk page, stating in his edit summary "b2c what i do to you??" and in the comment Erik noted some example comments from В²C, and asking "really? Why am I getting this from you?", В²C never responded back [46].

TonyBallioni has indicated that this thread will also likely get archived with yet another warning and then we will be back again. IMHO if TonyBallioni's proposal is not acceptable, something else should be proposed. This should not be left without addressing. Problem has not disappeared so far while ANI kept ignoring it and sweeping it under the carpet. And for sure, the problem will not disappear, even if we ignore this once again. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, believe me, I hear you! I agree my conduct especially towards ErikHaugen was inappropriate in that discussion. I did acknowledge and apologize but then I blew it again. I did not mean to be insulting or disrespectful. In my head I'm just ribbing and having a friendly debate, but in writing without body language and voice intonation I forget it comes off as being harsh. Not that it's an excuse, but, I don't think I was the only one who went off the rails a few times in that heated discussion, and I don't think I deserve sanctions any more than anyone else for it. That discussion finally died down, and you and I were among all of us involved who all stepped back and dropped our proverbial sticks (though I never equate in my mind debates with battles), eventually. So there's that. I'm sure our future encounters will be more congenial. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

NOT RELEVANT TO *THIS* DISCUSSION

@Born2cycle: I am not sure that why DBigXray is trying to be an opportunist when he has been most disruptive throughout that page move and the move review with his repetitive nonsense. On MR, you were always on the point and managed the discussion better than what I was expecting given the bludgeoning that was going on there. I don't see if you were wrong anywhere. Qualitist (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that, and I think that illustrates how much being in agreement or not colors one's perception of how words are interpreted. I think you saw my comments as I intended - well meaning ribbing in a friendly dispute. That said, ideally I should be thinking of how anyone who disagrees with me might reasonably interpret my words, and I could certainly do better in that department. Though I understand going too far can also be not productive. For the record, I do disagree with DBigXray's characterization of why I disputed Erik's close, but this is not the place rehash all that again! --В²C ☎ 02:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I see that Qualitist is here as well with his usual lies and deception against me. Looking at the number of comments at Move review of Jaggi Vasudev from all participants, where Erikhaugen had to respond to all 3 of these editors В²C, Paine Ellsworth and Qualitist who were objecting to Erik's RM close. The number of comments clearly speaks for themselves on who was disrupting and bludgeoning. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Username !Vote at Jaggi MRV Number of comments ErikHaugen Endorse (closing admin) 44 В²C Overturn 34 Paine Ellsworth Overturn 32 Qualitist Overturn (Nom) 23 SmokeyJoe Endorse 23 DBigXray Endorse 23 This what I meant from the fact you have been "most disruptive throughout that page move and the move review" with your repetitive nonsense. You haven't addressed your issues, including your "repetitive nonsense" that flooded RM and MR, not just MR. But you don't have to worry because you will get the opportunity for it one day since it is very usual to see some editor dragging you to ANI because of your recurring CIR. Qualitist (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Phew, glad to know that I don't have to worry. Qualitist may I suggest another third correction after 2 that you already, made to your line above to include "...since it is very usual to see some editor (from the same group that includes Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, D4iNa4, Orientls, Rzvas, 123sarangi, and their friends) dragging you to ANI..."--DBigXrayᗙ 04:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC) You are paranoid with your fantasies. You have to learn many things but for now you should better know that you must not be commenting on others conduct by pointing to an incident where you have been most disruptive. Qualitist (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Since Tony Ballioni's proposal has been closed with no action, I have posted two additional proposals (#Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle) and #Proposal 3 (Born2Cycle)) below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm familiar with this editor through their participation in WP:RM discussions; I also reverted a diff of theirs here that I feel would have been strongly non-constructive. B2C is clearly an opinionated editor, which is no sin; without opinionated editors we would not have an encyclopedia. They do seem to have a tendency to get into trouble when they make dozens of comments on a topic; I'd recommend that they refrain from making more than 3 comments in any 24 hour period on a specific thread on a talk page. (That's a good rule of thumb for everyone, by the way). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (Born2cycle)

This proposal is unlikely to reach any consensus. Leaving the main discussion open for potentially another proposal as raised issues are ongoing. Alex Shih (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, given that opinion is split on a indef/site ban, but there does seem to be consensus that B2C's way of interacting with others on this site is disruptive, I'm proposing the following: Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace. This sanction may be appealed no earlier than 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Support As proposer. I think he's a longterm net-negative to the project, and should not be allowed to continue to contribute, but that is unlikely to happen without an ArbCom case, and I don't think anyone wants that. This sanction addresses the problem that people have identified above that he is completely unable to drop the stick or consider the views of those beside himself as legitimate, while still allowing him to participate on Wikipedia and not overwhelm discussions. I think it is a good middle ground, and for those of us who think he falls into net-negative territory is an exercise in WP:ROPE: either this works and he becomes a productive editor, or it fails and it becomes evident to the community that he is not able to reform. Either way, the problem will be solved by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose To namespaces other than WT namespace (and also exclude from RMs in the project namespace, since they occur at the WT namespace), I don't think there has been sufficient problems there. This seems to have been the views of the September AE case, there didn't appear to be much support for banning B2C from individual RMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as the persecuted and accused. I deny the charges which are extremely vague anyway, and not even attempted to be proven. I find it ironic that the editor who started this AN/I is accusing me of "interacting with others" in a disruptive way. Who has been disrupted by anything I've said or done? What have I said or done that disrupted anyone? Now look at how many were disrupted for this AN/I. And this latest squirmish all started, by the way, when TonyBallioni jumped in at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs with this surprising edit and edit summary about which he still can't explain the basis at Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Joseph_E._Duncan_III. That sure looks disruptive to me... --В²C ☎ 22:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC) You are not a victim. The links to previous discussions about your history have been provided above. You only backed down on that page after the possibility of an indefinite block and you continue to cast aspersions even while this is going on. Coming to a page after you posted about it at WT:BLP and then finding other BLP issues and insisting that they have consensus for inclusion before being restored in not disruptive. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I was and remain bewildered by your objection to inclusion of that link in the See Also section (Joseph A. Spadaro and I await your responses to our questions at that discussion section, especially considering what WP:SEEALSO says and the similar examples of See Also inclusions in BLP/criminal related articles I listed), but I admit that it was a mistake and premature to revert your revert, and I apologize. That was out of character for me if you look at my history, but I truly thought you made an error and consensus for inclusion was implied. I won't do that again. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC) oppose, mildly, "It is a highly active species. Always on the move and is very squirmish, if handled. " this is the only hit I got, so I want to see that word used more often : ) never change mate. cygnis insignis 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Too many potential squirmishs in some new approaches, will support a consensus on some form of community pressure to inhibit unhelpful dissent. cygnis insignis 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose unless we're going to penalize all overly active participants in requested moves and related discussions the the same way. Although I don't think any action is necessary at this point, I urge B2C to consider this a warning and consider dialing back his participation in said discussions. Calidum 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that but please know this issue with TonyBallioni was at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs and had nothing to do with RMs or titles. I honestly think he (and a few others) just unfairly judge my behavior through a prejudicial lens and see problems where if others did the exact same thing it wouldn't be an issue at all. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) While I have argued for many years that B2C needs formal restrictions, this suggestion of edits per page per day is not it. Words per page per week might be a better measure of tendentious verbosity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Frankly, I'm not understanding the hesitation to indef him. He's been a net-negative for a long time. Hasn't he "exhausted the patience of the community" yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Wow. Net-negative? Thank you for sharing your hateful and hurtful opinion. Why is this acceptable? —В²C ☎ 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Don't be disingenuous, it's hardly the first time you've been evaluated as a net-negative to the project. And it's acceptable because AN/I is where the behavior of editors is evaluated for the possibility of sanctioning -- which you totally know, because you've been discussed here before -- these are all AN/I reports: Feb 2009, May 2009, June 2009, May 2010, Aug 2010, Oct 2010, Oct 2010, Dec 2010, Dec 2010, Jan 2011, May 2011, Aug 2011, Oct 2011, Dec 2011, Dec 2011, Jan 2012, Feb 2013, May 2014, Jan 2016, Oct 2016, April 2017 The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I stopped when I got to the third page of this. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it. So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) That’s still a tiny fraction of all the discussions I’ve been involved in over those years and in every AN/I case it’s brought here by someone who disagrees with me about some issue, but complains about my behavior which is usually actually pretty typical/normal on WP, and not against any rules, as is made evident when objective uninvolved editors look at it and see nothing problematic to sanction. The bottom line is some people unfortunately take disagreement personally and develop animus towards the person who disagrees with them. I mean, look at how are political leaders are behaving. Some can disagree amicably (I can), but others get pissed off. It’s what has happened with Tony, you, and many others. I should not be faulted or penalized for disagreeing with others. But that’s all that this is about. —В²C ☎ 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Total outsider who have just kept an eye on this - You don't seem to understand this is not about the fact that you disagree, but how you express yourself and behave when you disagree. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC) @MPJ-DK: Okay, I agree with that much: I don’t understand that this is about how I express myself and behave when I disagree. The reason I don’t understand is because, as far as I know, how I express myself and behave when I disagree is respectful and appropriate per normal standards and applicable WP behavioral policies and guidelines. I’m not perfect, but my perception is my behavior is generally above average in terms of avoiding personal attacks, not being belittling, being civil, not showing disrespect, AGF, etc., when discussing with someone with whom I disagree. Not perfect. Not the best. But above average. So, total outsider, please help me understand. If I’m wrong and it’s not just about people griping about my behavior simply because I disagree with them, but it’s something substantive about how I express myself and behave, please, tell me what it is that I’m doing wrong. Help me understand, and I’ll stop. (By the way, I think this reply exemplifies how I typically express myself and behave when I disagree - can you identify a problem here?). —В²C ☎ 07:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC) MPJ-DK posts 35 words. B2C replies with 180 words, denying the observation and demanding MPJ-DK follow up with an extensive reply to his 180 words. I would call “escalation of verbosity” the central problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC) @Born2cycle: Comment from another uninvolved outside observer: one issue I see reading this thread is that you're responding to nearly every editor's comment. Though the content of the responses may be civil, the sheer volume of responses can have the unintended effect of "choking" conversation, making it difficult for the editors to talk to each other about you, rather than just talking to you. The community may want to see that you know when and how to step back, including maybe now. (Up to you.) Levivich? ! 07:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I have no doubt whatsoever that you do not understand what it's all about, because if you did, there wouldn't be so many complaints about your editing, because you would have changed the way you edit in response to the piles and piles and piles of complaints. The fact that the complaints continue after at least 9 years, is testament to your lack of understanding, I think. The only alternative is that you do understand what everyone objects to, but you don't give a damn about their objections and complaints, you just want to edit the way you want to edit, no matter what the rest of the Wikipedia community says. Those are really the only possibilities: either you don't understand, or you do and are giving the rest of us the finger. Either way, you're a net negative to the project, because you suck up way too much time and energy for the contributions you make (only 12.6% of which go to improving articles, while 51.2% go to talking about them on article and user talk pages). [47] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I support “net negative”, although I note some improvement, if we exclude the recent affection to close discussions (actions that must be throughly scrutinised and are frequently found faulty) and attempts to reword policy (including BLPCRIME). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Just now reading over the the AE discussion from March, it strongly resembles this discussion, with pleas to change behavior and promises to, which is unfortunate to see again, 9 months later. Apparently, we already have been through this same discussion before. I'm not going to change my Oppose right now but I now think some editing restrictions are called for. If В²C didn't pick up the message being given at AE, what assurances are that this will change now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Take a look at some of the AN/I reports I just posted links for, and see if it doesn't change your mind. Basically, B2C has been like this from the beginning, he's been in trouble for his behavior from the beginning, and he just never changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Support, for what it's worth. I find it astonishing that we can be here, on the - what - 15th or more noticeboard report, and hardly anyone seems to think that such a perennial time-sink needs a sanction that will stop there being a 16th or more report, and a 17th, and an 18th ... Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Attempts to muzzle someone simply for disagreeing with them (whether they realize that’s what they’re doing or not) rightfully should not succeed. —В²C ☎ 07:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) More content-free argument. A net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, goodness, the Free Speech gambit. Well, you say you have a right to hold your rally, and I say, sure, but you're not going to hold it in my living room, fella. Another clear indication that you have little or no understanding of what's going on here. As my mother used to say to me, "It's not what you said, it how you said it" -- and you say it disruptively and tendentiously, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Ugh, not cute anymore. I'm starting to agree with the idea of an enforced break from RM, certainly from closing them. Nevertheless, I consider my exasperation with the user to be my problem, and interaction with this type of editing is a rite we have no means or right to insulate ourselves from. A sort of continuity in our community's history, I suffer from nostalgia on occasion. And he is a good guy, I'm sure, just another stamina junkie is all. cygnis insignis 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) B2C: The problem — which you seem determined not to hear — is not with the fact that you disagree with others. Disagreement happens all the time, and can be quite healthy. The problem is the tendentious way in which you do it, and the fact that (as others have rightly noted) it's turned into a disruption a great many times over the past many years. That you continue to characterize concerns with your behavior as "muzzling" suggests you're not understanding that point. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose sanction. With all due respect to Tony who, as I have said on many occasions, is one of our finest and most even-handed admins, I do think this ANI thread is undue escalation. It is clear that B2C has a style of editing that rubs some people up the wrong way, and I can fully understand why that is. He has strong opinions on particular topic areas, and finds it difficult on occasion to WP:Drop the stick. On the flip side, though, he understands our article title policies better than almost anyone and most of the time he is absolutely right about the points he makes. User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle is one example - it accurately describes a phenomenon on Wikipedia which has happened in numerous places over the years, where a bad title is eventually replaced by a better one despite many years of failed move requests. New York (state) and Hillary Clinton to name just two. In itself the "Yogurt Principle" is harmless and often useful, yet B2C gets massive criticism for it. Sarah Jane Brown is another case, which Tony mentioned as a "bad thing" in the thread on his talk page. But there are many people, myself included, who think "Sarah Jane Brown" is a dreadful title for the article. It doesn't match our naming conventions, and B2C makes very cogent arguments to that effect on the occasions the matter has been debated over the years. Is that annoying to people who disagree? Yes. Is it against the rules? I don't think so. He doesn't edit war in article space, and he accepted last year's close on the SJB RM. On the actual issue that led to this thread, obviously it is a content dispute, and I can see both sides of the story. Tony felt he was sticking to the BLP rules, and of course B2C should not have called him a "jerk". But then again, as wbm1058 says above, it is possible to convey a message to an experienced editor without using templates designed for newbies, and I would have thought the discretionary sanctions notice could have been posted as a friendly message instead of a template? In summary then, the only crime I can see is that B2C has strong opinions, and sometimes goes too far in expressing them. When that happens, I would urge both sides in to please approach it in a collegiate rather than a combative fashion. B2C should try to understand why people feel annoyed by him, and similarly those who criticise should do more to understand his point of view rather than simply coming to ANI every time there's a dispute. I think calling him a "net negative" is very far from the mark. His presence here over the years has definitely helped our article titles be in a better shape. Thanks, and I hope this makes some sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) He is oblivious to his own biases, and will put endless energy and devotion into arguing a peculiar blinkered view. You agree with him at Wikipedia:Move_review#Jaggi_Vasudev, but do you agree with the number and tone of his posts there? His “Yogurt Principle” is a justification for relentless disruption until the noisy group gets its way. My “net negative”, for the last year, assessment is based on the amount of review time needed for every move and RM close he makes, a fair impartial action can’t be trusted without review. You, Amakuru, appear to be the most respect admin who had time for him, why don’t you volunteer to play his “probation officer”, he needs someone on his side who can tell him when to back off or ease off. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC) The rules for discretionary sanctions are very strict: notifications must use the specified template before administrators can apply a sanction at their discretion for the topic area in question. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose sanction. With no due respect to Tony Ballioni or Dennis Brown or any of the other process jockeys that spend all too much authority posturing and no actual project improvement. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC) No respect, although it is due? cygnis insignis 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC) No respect is due. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Govindahariahri, your deliberate ill-mannered disrespecting of Tony Ballioni and Dennis Brown -- both of whom have already contributed more to Wikipedia than it's likely you ever will -- reflects more upon your extremely poor judgment than it does on upon anything else. You might want to consider just editing articles and forebear from commenting on the noticeboards, where you constantly embarrass yourself with your ill-considered opinions. Born2Cycle should be worried, because when you show up in support of someone, it's almost inevitable that they're on the cusp of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I wouldn't worry BMK, even without his ridiculous comments about Tony and Dennis, the community got to the point long ago where no-one takes any notice of Govindaharihari's comments. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I could have written the first paragraph writen by Ivanvector (18:33, 18 January 2019), although B2C and I also agree on other issues. I also agree with User:Crouch, Swale (19:48, 18 January 2019). So I Oppose this proposal--and also the site ban--but B2C please self-moderate and consider this ANI a shot across the bows and not a licence to kill (pun intended). -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as not actually responsive to the issues that keep bringing B2C back here. I've gone from seeking an indef myself against B2C, back in the day, to more recently being highly critical of the reasoning for the indef imposed on him a year or so back. (I wrote a detailed analysis of why at his talk page some time ago [48]; the short version is that he was accused of doing the same thing over and over and not listening when consensus was against him or ever changing his stance, but that was easily disproved by the actual changes in what he was proposing and why, which were clearly directly responsive to the criticism he was receiving – he simply got railroaded anyway. And the block was invalid for unquestionable procedural reasons, including ArbCom limiting the scope of the case under which he was blocked to specific pages which were not the pages to which he was posting.) It would make more sense to use an RM-specific topic ban, than either a general block, or some weird 1RR thing across the entire site, since he never ends up at ANI or other dramaboards for anything not related to RM, from what I can tell, and he's productive outside that one problem area. Sanctions are to be preventative (of actual issues, not imaginary or hypothetical ones), never punitive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, a topic ban on article naming was what the AE thread had consensus on, but then he was blocked indefinitely so the AE was closed - until, of course, he was unblocked and carried on with the type of editing that got him to AE in the first place. One of the many failings of Wikipedia's arcane processes, unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Quick point: can anyone articulate exactly what I supposedly did that brought me here to AN/I this time, and how what I did supposedly violates anything? BTW, the discussion cited related to Kidnapping of Jayme Closs had nothing to do with titles or RMs. I was actually working in article space trying to improve an article I was interested in and got involved in a content dispute, followed WP:BRD, etc., which led me to informally (no rfc) proposing on a talk page a possible change to a guideline. I honestly don't see what the problem was, so my question stands. To anyone. Why are people talking about RM limitations? I've been (mostly) avoiding being tendentious in RMs. See my history! I feel like I'm being railroaded, again, though I won't rule out the possibility that I'm missing something. --В²C ☎ 01:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC) You were never "railroaded". Many editors have expressed concern about your editing over many years. You finally pushed far enough that you got yourself blocked. Your constant refrain of "I don't get it" doesn't help. Omnedon (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose, talk page sanctions are almost never a good idea. We want people to use talk pages to carry out any detailed discussions they wish to have. Having lots of edits on a talk page is not a Bad Thing in and of itself. I don't care if B2C uses a talk page to argue against policy when most think he's wrong, or to disagree with other editors about an interpretation of a guideline. That's what talk pages are for - talking things over. Annoying or not, I have not once been shown that this prolixity and tendentiousness is spilling over into article space and causing any kind of disruption in article space. Fish+Karate 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't think anyone's saying that many talk edits by themselves are a problem, or that debating with others on talk pages is wrong, or that article space is being impacted. The concern centers mainly around the long-term tendentiousness of B2C's interactions in talk space, and how that negatively affects the relevant forums and community. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Support some form of action re B2C, but (like others above) I must weakly oppose this proposal. A sanction in the form of x edits per y time period strikes me as a little too arbitrary and unwieldy, and would presumably require constant policing to enforce — and having to constantly sink time into addressing issues caused by this user is one of the things I think the community's trying to get away from. I realize that B2C was blocked[49] for a period in 2018 for similar behavior, and that to judge from the continuing debate it hasn't affected the desired change. That being the case, it seems like another block, perhaps of a longer duration, may be necessary. However, something less severe like banning B2C from RMs for a period might be worth trying. Either way: without action, it seems likely we'll all be meeting here again in another six to nine months to re-debate it. My take on the broader situation: The very lengthy and regular history of problems that the community has had with B2C over many years (a portion of which was linked above by Beyond My Ken) should, I think, be of at least some concern to anyone interested in the overall health of the project. As I've said before, I don't think B2C is motivated by anything other than a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia... but problems arise from the fact that his views on how to improve Wikipedia are often at odds with the community's — or to be more accurate, the problem is that he takes his advocacy for his views too far, often turning to filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence to get a particular favored outcome, or other such tendentious behaviors. I feel like these things have a corrosive, negative effect on the nature of debate in the forums, and makes it less likely that users (particularly newer ones) will be willing to engage. Concerning though those problems are, the more disheartening part is that B2C rarely acknowledges the problems, and instead voices bewilderment at why he's yet again the center of dispute. I say disheartening because if he hasn't internalized the need for change after so many iterations — and with such similar concerns expressed by such a variety of editors across so many years — I fear that change may never happen. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Huwmanbeing, all of the people who complain about my behavior, including you, have a history of disagreeing with me. Can you blame for thinking that's not just as a strange coincidence? You mention "filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence" all of which I admit to being guilty of engaging in to some degree in the past, including arguably in this AN/I discussion itself, but it's not like I'm the only one who has made such errors (including you). More to the point, I was brought here to AN/I this time due to alleged misbehavior that had nothing to do with that. Certainly no examples of me engaging in "filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence" behavior were cited related to the article in question, Kidnapping of Jayme Closs. So why do you bring up all this unrelated baggage, other than as part of a persecution of me because of our disagreements in the past? How can I get you guys with whom I've disagreed in the past to realize you view my behavior through a different lens than you view others? That you often see issues in my behavior where you would not if anyone else was doing the exact same thing? --В²C ☎ 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC) It’s all related, it’s all the same thing. The detail of particular disagreements is irrelevant. It’s your inability to understand what others are saying, followed by challenging with escalation of verbosity while missing the point. This is why you should never be closing discussions (RMs or others), or striving to alter policy, because you don’t understand things that don’t fit your views. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Yeah, well, if I have a misunderstanding with someone I do try to resolve it with, you know, discussion. That's my big crime? And closing discussions and striving to alter policy? You mean like countless others do innocently in your eyes? But if I do it it's a crime? Because I tend to try to resolve misunderstandings with discussion? Your blatantly biased treatment of me is beyond belief, as you've made abundantly evident, again, today, here: User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC) (ec) Oppose. I do not believe that the proposed sanction would prove to be beneficial for В²C, for editors who are unhappy with his patterns of discussion, or for the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 20:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Okay, I had left this for a few days as it had been frustrating me, but I can always see if there isn't room for a solution I've proposed, so I won't argue this one. I'm personally not sure where we're going here, and you can count me in the same camp as BMK and Black Kite as being confused as to why there's hesitation here: I've never doubted the B2C's heart is in the right place, I just think his long-term behavior is disruptive. All that being said, I do think what's being expressed here is that the community is tired of the refusal to get to the point or understand views other than his own. I'd personally be content at this point to have this report closed as a final warning to B2C that on a collaborative project, this type of behavior isn't acceptable. Maybe that will make it so there isn't a 16th or more report or that when the 16th or more report happens, we can have a discussion about another sanction that would prevent the 17th. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) ....aaaaand... there's currently a discussion on B2C's talkpage about yet another poorly closed RM ... Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Support Every time someone says something bad about B2C it is met with accusations of bias or that the other individual has a history of disagreeing with them. This is clearly the behavior of someone who sees nothing wrong in what they do, and the numerous times this comes up have shown that nothing is likely to change until the changed is forced. Nihlus 00:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose Seriously? We're talking about talk space edits? B2C's style may be abrupt, in the classic calling a spade a bloody shovel style, but he is engaged in discussing issues on the talk page where it belongs. He is not engaged in main space edit warring or making argument through repeated edit/revert edit summary cycles. Those who are annoyed by B2C might be best advised to grow a thicker skin and worry a bit more actual problematic editors disrupting main space. You may disagree with him but at least he is discussing policy issues on talk space which is surely one of the purposes of talk pages. This smells of a spiteful attempt to silence an opponent, I'm not impressed. - Nick Thorne talk 01:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Nick Thorne, disruption is disruption not matter where it occurs. And your aspersions thrown Tony's way are unwarranted. Nihlus 02:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Close w/final warning per TonyBallioni b/c it will make everyone happy: the editors that believe no sanction is warranted can be happy that no sanction issued. The editors that believe we will soon be here for a 16th round can be happy that soon sanctions will issue, and likely a more serious one than what was proposed here. After the final warning issues, either the editor's behavior will conform to community expectations, or soon the editor will be banned or blocked. Levivich? ! 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle)

On the basis of the evidence in the previous two sections, Born2Cycle is topic banned from anything and everything to do with moving pages. He may not make page moves, he may not initiate RM or page move discussions, and he may not participate in RM or page move discussions anywhere on en.wiki. He may not solicit RMs or page moves from other editors. The only thing he may do in relation to page moving is to request a move at WP:RM, which request must consist of a single statement with no follow up comments. He may appeal this ban in 6 months.

• Support as proposer. Second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The above discussion which was a lesser proposal than the above was met with clear consensus against it. The strength and policy seem clear to that that lesser proposal was clearly opposed. A few editors suggested a lesser ban like no closing RM discussions or editing policy pages but this proposal is clearly not going to happen per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, particularly since it's time-limited and allows Born2Cycle to remain an active editor in other areas, which I think is reasonable. Per the evidence, it's true that nearly all these disputes about B2C's behavior originate from behavior in RMs, and have led to more discussions like this than I care to count. That we continue to have to debate this year after year suggests past sanctions haven't been effective, so IMHO an enforced break in this particular area is worth trying. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Shame on you for proposing this Beyond My Ken. I hope whoever closes this reads the previous sections and does not read this section in isolation and it is unreasonable of the BMK to want people to reitterate the opinions they have already given and IMHO there is no consensus among those who have expressed an opinion for this proposal -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per PBS. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on the whole, honestly because following this issue for the past couple days has left a bad taste in my mouth. I began this comment observing that less than a year ago I suggested basically the same thing regarding the dispute Tony mentioned in his original post. In my view the situation has improved somewhat, but I regret to observe that this improvement seems to be driven by a small number of users who appear to me to be showing up uninvolved whenever Born2Cycle is in any kind of dispute, which is behaviour many ANI regulars know I find distasteful. Born2Cycle, I do hope you take on board some of the constructive criticism offered in this thread and especially consider backing off of some of your more assertive policy wonkery. Take Johnuniq's comment here to heart: "The alleged benefits of the perfect title are not worth the years of dispute". It's especially not worth finding yourself banned by the community, and in my experience on this board this discussion looks like a last chance to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Do you have an alternate solution? 'Cause I'm all ears. Or do you think that there is no problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this doesn't solve anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Power-enwiki: Then what will? I'll withdraw my proposals in favor of one which (1) will control B2C's behavior, and (2) has a chance of being supported by the community. However, I'm not of the mind that there is no problem to be solved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Corrent ping @Power~enwiki: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• If something along these lines were necessary, the exact opposite proposal (that B2C is banned from everything except move discussions) would be better for the encyclopedia. RM is sometimes contentious, but trying to remove all the contentious editors from that process will not improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don;t follow your thinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. That proposal didn't gain consensus, so quite why anyone thinks a harsher punishment will is beyond me. I suggest people stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed this is like trialing changing someone for murder after being found not guilty of manslaughter. When a more appropriate trial would be a lesser offence like OAPA 1861 would be more suitable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector, specifically the comments regarding the small number of users who show up when B2C is subject to ANI. IMO this is evidence of a personal war between editors, and that's disturbing and unconstructive to building an encyclopedia. RandomGnome (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support something like this, though the exact wording of this one is self-contradictory (someone can't be simultaneously banned from RM them told that their only RM recourse is to open an RM – Beyond My Ken, please consider revising). Almost all of B2C's troubles have been RM-connected, and are more particularly to do with bludgeoning the process, so a better-written restriction that curtails that activity is the way to go. Prevent the problem behavior without treating the otherwise productive editor like a vandal. Some simpler wording might be something like "prohibited from moving pages directly, or making repetitive comments in an RM discussion", though some middle-ground revision might work, if that's too concise.

  PBS and Crouch,_Swale seem to be missing something important in their above assumptions that proposal 2 (in some wording or other) is more restrictive, more heavy-handed, than the rejected proposal 1. It is far less so, being circumscribed to a particular topic/process, while the original would have curtailed B2C's ability to edit and even to communicate in all topics and all processes without reasonable cause for doing so (as would proposal 3 and then some, being a flat-out siteban). Meanwhile, if you work your way through the contradictory wording, even proposal 2 as initially written doesn't prohibit B2C from participating in a process (RM), it just requires any participation in it to be within some constraints. It is narrowly tailored (though needs better wording) to fit the actual B2C-related problem we keep coming back to at ANI and other noticeboards.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think it's contradictory, per se, it states the broad condition first (i.e. topic banned from everything connected to RM or page moving) and then gives the sole exception (to go to the RM page and request a non-controversial technical move). Big cloth, with one hole in it; brick wall with one window. If there's a better way of expressing that, please let me know and I'll consider revising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Born2Cycle)

On the basis of the evidence provided in the previous two sections, Born2Cycyle is site banned from editing English Wikipedia as a net negative to the project. He may appeal this ban in 6 months.

• Support as proposer. First choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comment above, this is even an even greater restriction than the one directly above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as alternative to #2 (my preferred option). I observe in posts above that B2C still seems to be leaning on accusations of bias and claims not to understand why others' are concerned about his behavior. While it's unfortunately a very familiar response, it doesn't inspire confidence that either one of these proposals will make him internalize the need for change, but it's still worth trying. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support only choice (though I won’t oppose the RM one.) while proposal 2 would limit the RM related disruption, as we’ve now seen B2C is perfectly willing to find other positions that he’s willing to crusade over. The BLPCRIME discussions would still be ongoing about how we should ignore the BLP policy for confessions if this ANI wasn’t started and he had to shift his energies here. As some have pointed out above, the problem itself can be seen in this very thread where he overwhelms discussion, doesn’t get it, and casts himself as a victim. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Shame on you for proposing this Beyond My Ken. I hope whoever closes this reads the previous sections and does not read this section in isolation and it is unreasonable of the BMK to want people to reitterate the opinions they have already given and IMHO of there is no consensus among those who have already expressed an opinion to support this proposal. There is a clip on youtube about Brexit that could apply to these two new sub-sections -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Applied to the situation as a whole, the clip is on point. This seemingly is something like the 15th such discussion just at ANI... ╠╣uw [talk] 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per PBS. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in the first proposal. This seems to be a more serious version of that proposal, and so I am likewise more seriously opposed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. That proposal didn't gain consensus, so quite why anyone thinks a harsher punishment will is beyond me. I suggest people stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per PBS. Reading through the comments from some of those very keenly involved in this effort to permanently eject an editor from the community, I can't help but think this is part of an ongoing long-term personal war between editors. RandomGnome (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should not be afraid of people with opinions other than our own, nor should we want them to be removed just because we don't like that they are prepared to argue with us. B2C does not cause disruption to articles. A tip for all - whenever you see someone being described as "editing tendentiously", this is almost always a faux-polite way of saying "I find this user annoying". Being annoying most assuredly does not warrant a site ban. Fish+Karate 10:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Although tendentious behaviour is not mutually exclusive with annoying behaviour, the real hallmark of tendentious editors is they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. (taken from the essay on tendentious editing) As described in previous statements and seen in this discussion, this is a common behaviour of the editor in question. This can lead to budgeoning discussions, also discussed in previous statements, which is disruptive to the community decision-making process. I support any action, including this proposal, to help provide incentive for more collaborative behaviour, rather than continuing to dismiss criticisms as being other people's problems. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Support (almost) any sanction considered (as I don't frequent ANI) that much. I've been involved with a number of his move wars (I think, back in 2015), and, if he hasn't learned not to do what led to his block, he needs time off to reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as excessive. A far less restrictive original proposal was strongly rejected, so this has no chance. This looks like a labeling exercise, and it isn't actually supported by evidence, anyway. B2C's issues have almost entirely been confined to one area (RM); he is not a "net negative to the project", just arguably to a single process (though actually less so over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Except that at least 90+% of what he does is involved with that process, so the overall is a net negative, in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Born2Cycle)

Given that the two previous proposals seem destined to fail, I would like to propose another possible solution that I think addresses the issues raised without placing an unreasonable restrictrion on B2C.

Boorn2Cycle is limited to one comment per thread per day in RM discussions.

• Support as proposer. This will prevent the alleged bludgeoning without unreasonably restricting B2C's ability to express his opinion.- Nick Thorne ^talk 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

an ip removes embedded ext links without replacing them with footnotes

Thus the references are lost. Please talk senses to them.- Altenmann >talk 04:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

PS. When posting the ani notice in their tak page I noticed a repeated pattern of noncooperative editing. It looks like a behavioral problem. - Altenmann >talk 04:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Are you sure the IP is not correct? For example, diff is very defensible. At any rate, if the external links are badly formatted refs, the solution would be properly format them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• In my view, the IP is incorrect in the outright deletion of in-line ELs, which should be converted to refs whenever possible (if the source is reliable). In the example cited, a wikilink is not an acceptable substitute for a reference, as they serve different functions. An article full of wikilinks which has no references is not a properly referenced Wikipedia article, since the wikilink is just a way to sent readers to another article, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  On the other name Altenmann is equally incorrect is simply reverting the IP's edit. Both editors should convert in-line ELs to refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am correct because I am restoring references in text. Next thing here comes another warrior and deletes half an article which became unreferenced. Seen that all the time and had to restore from history when shit happened during my long hiatus with articles I cared. No I cannot convert. I am barely using computrr in my state now. - Altenmann >talk 05:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, in-line ELs are deprecated, so please convert them to refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Altenmann: 170k edits from '03? WP:SOFIXIT: "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia." Thanks to Beyond My Ken for taking a few seconds to actually resolve the problem, something I hope you will do yourself next time.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  06:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you can write but cannt read. I told you i have troubles with computer, smartass. I see lots of new shit in articles i just mostly letting it go. Let new wikigenerayio s worry. - Altenmann >talk 08:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• What kind of computer problem would prevent converting ELs to refs, but not prevent creating a new thread on a talk page? Missing {} keys? Is there a policy about not trying to edit the encyclopedia with a broken computer? ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Altenmann might also have meant they find it difficult to use the computer, or wiki markup. I can recommend the visual editor or 2017 source editor for putting in refs easily, if that's the case! They make it much simpler.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 21:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh for the days when a person's cites were their own business.(sigh). template:cite is useful. It just takes time to fill in the spaces. I think there is a tool to make it easier, but I don't know where to get it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wot Goldenshimmer said.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

From the IP's reply, it seems the primary problem is simply they misunderstood the purpose of those links.They weren't alone since Johnuniq above seemed to do the same, and frankly, I may have as well. Especially for the first one on Rubylith. One thing which doesn't seem have been properly mentioned yet is these weren't just normal bare external links. These were external links formatted as text in the article. This very bad formatting since it can easily be totally unclear the links were even intended as refs. As said before, the Rubylith one in particular looks a lot like it's simply intended to provide further information on Rubylith rather than actual reference the claim being made. It's far preferable if you are going to use external links as refs, to simply leave them as formatted but bare external links. In other words, put [https://example.external.link/like/this]. This isn't good, but it's better than the poor formatting that was used in the article since at least it looks more like the external link was intended as a ref. Of course even better is to format the ref. I mean even adding a simple <ref></ref> i.e. <ref>[https://example.external.link/like/this]</ref> or <ref>https://example.external.link/like/this</ref> is IMO better then nothing. Even better, use of various tools should make it easy to add some minimal proper formatting as mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Iamveselin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First encountered this user about a month ago as I noticed they were using the wrong type of dash on professional wrestling championship articles. Wasn't a big issue at the time and I undid their edits and told the user in the edit summary that they were using the wrong type of dash. I thought that would be enough, however, it wasn't and they made more of the same type of edits that I reverted. Iamveselin continued doing this, so I left a post on their talk page explaining what they were doing wrong. I thought this would be enough, but it wasn't and Iamveselin again made the same type of edits, so I reverted them and left another post warning them that if they continue to ignore me, they will be reported. That seemingly stopped their edits in regard to this issue, but I just noticed that a few days ago, they were at it again on the List of WWE SmackDown Women's Champions page. It should also be noted that this user has three separate warnings from this month about their unconstructive editing (content removal) on a couple of female wrestler articles. I did not want to have to make this report, but this user is ignoring mine and other users' warnings. --JDC808 ♫ 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Pro wrestling articles having the wrong kind of dash... ANI?? REALLY??? EEng 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Man this is like Cat Nip to ya, just don't "Nip and drive" please. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  <sound of screeching breaks, people screaming> EEng 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  Don't need the sarcasm. Like I said, I didn't want to make the report (because the dashes are a petty issue). The real issue is the fact that the user is flat out ignoring anything posted on their talk page or edit summaries (and the dashes aren't the only disruptive editing the user has done). --JDC808 ♫ 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JDC808, I have been editing for almost ten years and have been trusted by the community to be an administrator. I still don't understand the distinction between the "right" and the "wrong" type of dash, and consider the distinction to be trivial. If you care about dashes so much, then change dashes to your heart's content. But there is no point in bothering the editors who do not care about dash variations. That's pedantic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cullen328, I am sorry that you never learned about the different types of dashes (-, –, and —), and they do have specific uses. The fact that you are brushing this off and telling me the proper dash doesn't matter (when it does in quality writing) and basically telling me to edit war with this user makes me question you as administrator. Did you read the whole report? Dashes aside, the biggest issue is the fact that this user is ignoring mine and other user's warnings. --JDC808 ♫ 01:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JDC808, I did not tell you to edit war. I told you that if you want to do dash related gnome work, you are welcome to. You have presented no evidence of actual disruption, except that this thread that to you started is kind of disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You told me to "change dashes to [my] heart's content." I.e., if he changes it, then I would revert to the correct way, and it'll just be a continual cycle, otherwise known as an edit war, and we'd basically be right back here again. No evidence? Right, I guess you didn't look at any links. And once again, the dashes are not the issue. Stop getting hung up on that. I shouldn't have to repeat myself so many times to an administrator who's supposed to read the whole report. --JDC808 ♫ 02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Has this editor ever reverted you for changing a dash to a hyphen, or vice versa? You need to present actual evidence of actual disruption, JDC808. Yes, I saw a few warnings on their talk page. Are you asking for this editor to be blocked for that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't directly done a revert of me or others, but he has readded the incorrect dashes despite being told multiple times he was adding the wrong ones. If you need every single instance, I can link them, but there's a lot and another user has also reverted him for this same issue. On the other issue, the user is also blanking or removing content and has been reverted, but has also ignored those warnings. The user is obviously ignoring our attempts of communication and continues to make the same kinds of edits. A block may be needed so he knows he just can't continue making edits despite others warnings. --JDC808 ♫ 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JDC808, the distinction between hyphens and minus signs and en dashes and em dashes is not a matter of writing since that distinction is absent or completely muddled in handwritten manuscripts or in writing with a manual typewriter, and great works of literature have been written those ways. Instead, it is in the province of typography and orthography. Yes, the Manual of Style calls for different midline characters in different situations. That is why we have gnomes who love to copy edit the work of the editors who actually write encyclopedic prose. No content creator should ever be criticized for using an en dash instead of an em dash. That is the worst type of pedantry. If you are among the editors who care about these distinctions, then just fix it and move on. If you ever correct the dashes and hyphens in the articles I write, then more power to you! I will never complain about such a trivial matter, and will barely take notice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you're getting hung up on the dashes, and not the real issue of the user flat out ignoring attempts of communication. The thing is, I have "fixed it" several times but this user keeps changing it back despite edit summaries/talk page posts (and it was originally correct before the user began editing these articles). So am I just to basically keep "fixing it" because the user ignores edit summaries or their own talk page? --JDC808 ♫ 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, exactly who is getting "hung up" on hyphens and dashes is debatable, but, yes, the lack of communication is a problem, but you need to re-evaluate why' you think it's so darn important to talk to him when the subject matter is so incredibly trivial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You guys have a knack for dodging the real issue. Before you made your edit to this comment, I thought to myself, "great, he's finally seeing the real issue", but then you expanded this comment, and now I'm face-palming because you're basically bringing it right back to square one. It doesn't matter if the dashes are trivial, what matters is the fact that I've tried to communicate with the user to rectify the issue, but they will not/are not responding and continue to make the same edits. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec)JDC808, some editors never even look at a user or article talk page. They want to edit, not communicate. If this devolves into an edit war (that's IF), then you should post to the WP:ANEW. But ignoring you and other editors isn't a block-worthy infraction. And, I gather from the general response to your complaint, it's unlikely that any admin is going to see this situation as an immediate, urgent problem that calls for a block imposed upon an editor. I don't think posting your problem here is deserving of ridicule but clearly this behavior isn't seen right now as disruptive although it might seem that way to you. NinjaRobotPirate did post a warning about the General Sanctions about professional wrestling on Iamveselin's user talk page so now they've been warned. Hopefully, they might pay attention to this message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully, but they probably won't given their track record so far. --JDC808 ♫ 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch that kind of talk or you'll get a folding chair smashed over your head. EEng 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

EEng, I did a major expansion of one pro wrestling biography, Dick the Bruiser, a fellow who was involved in an ugly brawl at Madison Square Garden on November 19, 1957 that left the arena littered with many thrown chairs. Some things never change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do care about dashes, but I don't care if people use them when they're writing, and don't think it really matters at all. Sort of like spelling things wrong, or other punctuation mistakes, wrong citation styles, or whatever, as long as it can be understood, I'd rather have the content to read than none, and don't think we should stress over whether new content is formatted correctly. It's easy to fix a few typos and stuff than to write from scratch, so — I see nothing wrong with people adding content that's formatted wrong really, but that's just my 2¢ :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 01:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

According to MOS you should say "my $0.02". EEng 02:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JDC808: I wouldn't expect the user to stop ignoring you anytime soon. They have never edited anything but article space. They don't talk. I would say more, but I have to dash.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I take a slash-and-burn approach myself. EEng 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, we get more threads here about "pro" wrestling than about American politics, abortion, tinfoil hats, the Mideast, birthplaces of Balkan soccer players, and Japanese animation genres combined. You people get your act together. EEng 02:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's almost as if the General Sanctions that was imposed didn't solve the problem, just saying. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In this recent BLP EW re: subject's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with her contract/employer (obvi implications are obvi), it looks like Iamveselin was removing the potentially-problematic content, and communicating his reasons through HTML comments. I'm not seeing why they were given a warning for this. The previous warnings seem to be about this EW from last week where the editor's sourced additions were removed without explanation. Not sure why they were given a warning there, either. Though they are using – when they should use -, the rest of their contribs look like improvements to the encyclopedia to me. ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• The examples Levivich show here do not look "disruptive" to me, the reaction to those seem to be more disruptive - removing a source, readding a rumor cited to an unreliable source - neither actions help the article and to me doesn't actually make Iamveselin look disruptive in their edits. No diffs provided to show "disruptive behavior" only references to messages on their talk pages, which by itself is not proof of anything. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• After looking at the 3 warnings that triggered this, two are for the same article and after reviewing the history does not seem like they are "disruptive", one user takes exception to some content and they go back and forth - but instead of talking about it, two warnings are slapped on Iamveselin's talk page which to me seems antagonstic. The 3rd warning was because someone thought that removing rumors with an unreliable source is apparently not acceptable a BLP, and templated them. I'm not seen the case for "disruptive behavor" here. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's amazing how behind the times one can get if you don't pay close attention. For instance, I was totally unaware that when the universe was created, precisely what variety of short horizontal line must be used under each and every possible circumstance was part of the package. Here I was, thinking that whatever version was readable and conveyed the information was OK to use, and it turns out that there is always an ABSOLUTELY CORRECT VERSION -- and apparently JDC808 knows precisely what that is. Whodda thunk it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Low cost computer, around $200
• reading Wikipedia, free
• BMK's post, priceless-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• @EEng: I prefer "tuppence"-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Dash it all man-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• BMK's use of double hyphens in that post was masterfully subtle. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, so if something were grammatically incorrect or had typos but readable and conveyed the information, its okay, even if it happened to be a run on sentence on an encyclopedia where were trying to present professional quality articles, and maybe we forgot to use correct punctuation here and there, thats ok? Gotcha, but there's a difference between well-known, well–known, and well—known. --JDC808 ♫ 08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please learn what you're talking about: the use of hyphens and dashes is not in any sense a matter of grammar. As Cullen has already told you, that's in the realm of typography and orthography. Stop taking yourself so goldarned seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess that went over your head. Regardless, your post did nothing to resolve the issue, and there's already enough of that here. --JDC808 ♫ 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there's really no "issue" to be "resolved" seems to have gone right over yours. If you see something you think is wrong, fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, so the fact that this user is flat out ignoring attempts of communication to resolve issues is not an issue? I already said this to Cullen above, but I have "fixed it" several times, however, the user keeps changing it because they are ignoring edits summaries and talk page posts. "Fixing it" is only temporary because they will just change it again, and it will just be a continual cycle. You all are supposed to be admins, but you're giving absolutely poor advice here and overlooking the real issue. --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just looking at that last article they edited which JDC808 copy edited, if I'd added that much text, I'd have needed more copy editing than they did. They've not edited since Jan 19. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've left them another note asking them to join us. As they have not edited since (I think) before the ANI notice, it might be a while.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I've a confession to make. I can't tell an n-dash from an m-dash from a hyphen. I use the "-" key or sometimes type it twice "--" (rarely) for all three. It's the only horizontal line above the bottom I have.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

That was MPJ-DK that copy-edited Iamveselin's last article contribution. Looking at the very last sentence of my last post, you don't see the difference? On Iamveselin's talk page, I told them all they had to do was press the "-" key once, but they're instead clicking the first dash (which is an en-dash) from the list of characters below the editing window. --JDC808 ♫ 10:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did, and found the edits made by the editor in question were jus fine. In fact other than the fact than not getting the intricacies of - vs. – vs. — (worst WrestleMania main event ever) I am not seeing examples of being disruptive -- the fact that they don't seem keen to use talk pages is in itself not a problem. If it's not about the dashes please provide diffs where their editing is so disruptive that it needed to go to ANI. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved here but I am honestly disappointed in the admins here. JDC808 is trying to report an issue for rectification and instead of working on it, you saying it's for ANEW, not ANI. It shouldn't be that difficult for one of you just to move the conversation there. Given the number of edits I have to go back and forth with Iamveselin, (visible clearly in Becky Lynch:Revision history) I had to warn them. I tried to reach for consensus without reverting here, Talk:Becky Lynch#The Man/Feud with Ronda Rousey (BTW that was my previous username) but didn't find any response. I don't like you guys dodging the issue by simply arguing about "dashes" where the real problem is the user's lack of communication. Why pro wrestling have so many complaints? That I don't know, probably it's easy to update on a weekly basis and new users don't understand in the first place. As MPJ-DK pointed out, sanctions are not really effective. I would suggest further page protections to force these kind of newbies use discussion pages. I follow WP:PW/MOS and WP:PW/Sources for my edits. How should we deal with them if they do not response to open-ended discussions? Admins, please look at the situation and stop blaming others' and misuse the phrase "disrupting editing". If you think others' had made a mistake, you are free to criticize them and clarify the situation with civility. Thanks, and I ended up here since I had a watch on Iamveselin due to their continuous disruptive editing (which is editing without consensus, ignoring warnings and no response). ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry Cullen328 and EEng, but I feel like you are belittling the reporter. I would care much less if you had done the same to Iamveseline, since they never even show up to conversations. You should not neglect the assumption of good faith and admins are generally considered to be experienced and well-respected editors whom others can look up to. I apologize again for the basic lecture, but even the bests sometimes forget the divine principles. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The real issue is lack of communication from the user (Iamveselin), but there's only been one admin (Liz) that hasn't been belittling of the issue or gotten hung up on the dashes. This discussion could probably be much smaller if those who have chimed in focused on the real issue instead of mocking the issue of the dashes. --JDC808 ♫ 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So I have looked at the edits and see the following edits being labeled as "disruptive editing" because the user is 1) over linking two places, 2) adding a source that others find redundant and 3) being a little more detailed than some editors would like in an update. Is it annoying that they won't communicate? Yep totally, but to say "disruptive" is an over reaction and no diffs has been presented where their actual edits are disruptive - which is probably why it's hard for anyone to take this serious when all they've seen for "evidence" is the dash-darned dashes. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK I consider disruption whenever they are doing the same edits WHILE ignoring my messages. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. If a user continues to make the same edits despite attempts of communication to correct the issue, that is disruptive and could cause the article(s) to be unstable (it hasn't gotten to an unstable issue, but just saying, it could). --JDC808 ♫ 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard - You kept doing the same edits too, reverting without explaining them except perhaps saying "unnecessary" which doesn't explain anything really. The way I see it you are both disruptive or neither are disruptive, since you've really not explained anyhing, just slapped templates on their talk page where is that person's motivation to talk to you? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless of course I am unaware of the messages you've left for the user on their talk page that may have been deleted?? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK it isn't only me who slaps templates all the time. I tried to be polite and tried to reach a consensus with discussion. But they did not respond. If an edit is bad IMO, I can revert it if they don't respond. I can't just leave a message all the time like "yo, why you ignoring me." ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where you were polite to the user over the reverts you kept doing? Or even attempted to explain to the user why you revert their edits. I see 1 attempt at communicating and it was just "hey look at this link". MPJ-DK (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

MPJ-DK here and here. After that, it was other users as well who flushed out warning templates on their talk, which make everyone disruptive then based on your logic. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So I repeat one time where you basically said "I disagree with the naming of the section". Which I mentioned already, I was wondering where the polite conversation about the reverts was initiated but repeatedly ignored? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ignore the undetified man, focus on his message

Oh and that was not a polic related issue, it was you wanting to label the section as "feud with Ronda" even though it goes way beyond that, I would have disagreed with that too. To be "disruptive" they have to do more than just disagree with you. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why you guys always blame people on stuff. The evidence is clearly visible that they are ignoring multiple messages and warnings from others. It is not unpolite to disagree on something, as long as you are open for discussion. I bet they are laughing behind the screen watching YOU guys taking no action against them and instead finding faults on those who are reporting for good. Yes I admit, "disruptive" I'd very much subjective, but not responding for concensus and continuing to edit the same is a much greater sin. And most of the time, people who revert use templates as shortcut. Blame the system then instead of attacking us. ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some will remember the discussion a few months ago re recognizing that most pro wrestling sources are not independent but rather part of the kayfabe promotion machine, thus radically reducing both the number of articles in this topic area and the amount of brainless detail within those articles that remain, and in turn reducing the amount of wrestling-like tussles over nothing that the rest of us are asked to referee. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Thought_about_further_measures_to_reduce_wrestling-related_disruption. Not for action now, but to continue planting seeds for future action, I'd like editors to consider whether we should recognize the sources listed at WP:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Industry_specific as non-independent. EEng 16:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do remember that one, still have unanswered questions on that one, but that's for another day/place/time/dimension. Honestly the problem here goes two ways - no communication on talk pages vs. reverting and templating insted of trying to engage in conversations and explan why they are doing the reverts. Faults on both sides, should never have been at ANI IMO, that's just my $0.02 MPJ-DK (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ImmortalWizard: I have two questions for you if you don't mind answering: (1) What was the reason for this revert (there was no edit summary)? (2) What was the reason for this warning stating "Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted." What was the vandalism?) Thanks. ^Leviv_ich? ! 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:

1. There was surely edit summary (ce-copy edit). Perhaps I should have added WP:PW/MOS to be more specific. I did wikilinked that and WP:PW/Sources on edit summaries on that article beforehand. I was working on that article for a while and probably there was slight frustration which made me only do ce. It is also a kind of common sense and I couldn't be bothered to specify each time.
2. I had a warn them since that WAS "disruptive", as I mentioned above, since they ignored my previous messages and edited the same despite.

And if you guys really want to talk about my actions and editing style, please start the discussion somewhere else. This is not the appropriate place as this is supposed to be only about the alleged users' actions. My contributions clearly wasn't the cause of their "disruption". ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I got to say, this section is full of WP:ABP despite controlled by admins. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, I would invite you to have a look at WP:BUNGEE where your argument of "not the appropriate place" is both explicitly and specifically countermanded. To sum up, I quote: "Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate that. But people are getting off topic too much here. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

IW, you're saying "they are ignoring multiple messages and warnings from others" and my question is, why did you (and others) warn them in the first place? What is it that they are doing wrong? I see vandalism warnings but no vandalism. Hyphens/dashes don't merit a vandalism or disruptive editing warning. So what is it that you're warning them about? For example, you cited PW/MOS above; what part of PW/MOS did they not follow? ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I have to repeat again. I am warning about the user editing without continuosly ignoring messages. If you are interested, ask each an everyone of the editors who gave warning. There is no obligation to specify what's in WP/PW. Anyways, it is basically that you are not supposed to add unnecessary week to week contents. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Have you got any idea what this issue is about? Iamveselin is frequently making edits like this which includes "two–time" with an en dash instead of a hyphen. Anyone familiar with written English knows that is wrong without any need to consult a style guide. Iamveselin has never commented on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

So this is just about dashes? ^Leviv_ich? ! 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not just about dashes. It's the user's lack of communication to resolve issues, which, on my part at least, stemmed from the issue of incorrect dashes. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think with all the talk about dashes, everyone seems to have seriously missed the point. The OP has raised concerns about the editing of another editor. The editor is not responding to talk page communication from the OP. The crux of the matter is not the debate between dash styles but the failure to discuss. I've seen many instances on ANI where such an editor has been hit with a "hey you! you need to talk" block. Irrespective of the matter being debated, shouldn't this post be judged on the same merit? --Blackmane (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close comments

• So lets get this straight, an editor has been blocked for not responding to (from looking at their talkpage) false accusations of vandalism when they were adding unobjectionable (in the, its not uncited and its not a BLP violation sense) material to an article, and someone threatening to report them (as they have done) for not using the right type of dash? What the fuck is this "Bully people off wikipedia" month? The correct way to respond to people making unreasonable demands is to ignore them. An editor is not required to kowtow to the em-dash mafia. Jesus Christ. Next time someone has a go about dashes, I think the only response needed will be 'fuck off'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

In response to "threatening to report them for not using the right type of dash": the user was told multiple times that they were using the wrong one, but they kept ignoring me (as well as at least one other editor) and continued to change it from the correct dash to an incorrect one. The user would not discuss or address their edits, so what else was there to do? --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• No, this makes perfect sense:

1. "But ignoring you and other editors isn't a block-worthy infraction." - admin Liz in this thread
2. "I wouldn't expect the user to stop ignoring you anytime soon. They have never edited anything but article space. They don't talk. I would say more, but I have to dash." - Bbb23 in this thread
3. "I have blocked Iamveselin for three days for failure to collaborate, failure to respond to other users's concerns and, as a subset of failure to communicate, failure to use edit summaries (they never use summaries and they never talk)." - Bbb23 closing this thread
4. "If you do not respond, you will be blocked." - Something nobody said to this editor.

Encourage the silence and then punish the editor for it without warning. Three days for a first-offense, to boot. Makes perfect sense. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• The above comments completely miss the point. Wikipedia is a collaborative community and if people raise issues, you need to discuss them. If you can't or won't, find another website. The user's edits included blatantly silly changes to hyphenated phrases, replacing the bog-standard hyphen with an en dash. Sure, it's trivia, but when someone does it over and over and over, and never responds to other editors, they need to be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with admin Cullen328: "No content creator should ever be criticized for using an en dash instead of an em dash." ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticized is a strong word in this case. I tried to explain to the user the issue, but they ignored it and continued to make the same edits with no explanation for why they may have thought they were right. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Again, the issue concerns replacing hyphens with en dashes. Did you miss what I wrote (twice), or do you not believe it. If the latter you might check a few of the diffs, including the one I gave you. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, I understand (and I think everyone else does too) that the complaint is that the editor is replacing hyphens with dashes, not just using dashes instead of hyphens when adding new content. Examples of this are in the history of the article linked to by OP. [50] But the user is also adding new content; much more than they are messing with dashes. Look at this revert [51] and this revert [52], it's not just about dashes. Content is being reverted there, too. But the editors (plural) who are reverting this content and posting vandalism or disruptive editing warning templates are making it seem like it's just #$T#$!@$# being posted on the page and reverted, when in fact it's dashes PLUS content, even sourced content. So what's going on there? That's why I asked above "why did you revert?" and such questions. Anyway, dashes isn't the reason the editor is blocked; not communicating is. Look I've written way too much about this as it is, so I don't see the reason for me to argue the point any further. But please don't insult me by repeatedly suggesting that because I disagree with your point of view, it means I don't understand, or I didn't read the diffs. ^Leviv_ich? ! 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As those differences you linked were my own edits, look at what was actually done. The only content I removed was trivial content (e.g., "first-ever"). The rest was changing the text back to how it previously was (which was more concise) before Iamveselin's edits, which introduced some grammatical issues. Now I can't speak in regard to the content that was the subject of the warnings made by ImmortalWizard and Static with those articles. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Huh? Please read your last comment above. Why write that if you already knew that the issue had nothing to do with using an en dash instead of an em dash? Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Because I wasn't interpreting the statement quite so literally. Let me rephrase, then: No content creator should ever be criticized for using the wrong type of hyphen or dash. To which I would add: no editor should be required to engage with other editors who are removing sourced content and calling it "vandalism", or who edit war to include poorly-sourced potentially-damaging rumors in a BLP, and no editor should be blocked without explicit warning that X behavior, if continued, will lead to a block. ^Leviv_ich? ! 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. Looking at the general case, an editor doesn't have to accept that the violations they're being accused of are valid ones, but there is a requirement to respond, to say in return: "my edits weren't vandalism and here's why." There's no necessity that they carry on an extensive discussion, or accept the other editor's behavior (they're perfectly free to report them as well), but a complete lack of response serves to undermine Wikipedia's system.
  The problem with this specific case is that the people reporting the lack of communication were themselves blowing up a trivial issue of typography ("bog-standad" or not) into a major issue -- which is why they received a goodly portion of sarcasm in the responses they go in the thread above -- calling things "vandalism" which were not, and so on. In the end, though, when push comes to shove, not communicating with anyone is a more serious problem than turning a molehill into a mountain, which is why the block went the way it did -- at least that's my interpretation of events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to point out that I never once called the "dash" edits vandalism, only disruptive as they continued to make the same edits despite attempts to correct the issue. It was in the other warnings from other editors where "vandalism" was used. --JDC808 ♫ 07:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User has not responded on their talk. Their is extended discussion their about all of this. The block expires in a couple of hours.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23's closing statement says "I have also warned the user that if they persist in this kind of behavior, the next block will be indefinite," so I suppose we wait to see if they continue not to respond to new requests for communication, and use edit summaries, and if not... Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8

Yet another WP:NOTHERE on US road articles. 2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding uncited info without consensus. When asked to stop reverting by an editor, they essentially mocked said editor, claiming that we should not revert their edits without a discussion, since "facts and citations don't matter". Cards84664 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks familiar.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: You want to give it a go? They're still going. Cards84664 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd recommend asking for WP:RPP. Semi-protection would prevent IP and dynamic IP editors from editing the page, and typically they get bored and move on. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it anyways since I was on the page. Hope you don't mind. :) ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this editor is the same as an IP that removed Interstate 605 (Washington) from the same page, based on their assertion that a former (but serious) proposal should not be listed. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I invited them to this discussion and Semi'd the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is the same editor - see the contributions by 2604:4080:1300:8031::/64... IPv6 addresses are commonly distributed dynamically at the client level and at the /64 CIDR range. In many cases, this IP change can occur as often as every few hours. It's typically beyond their control and in most cases is not a deliberate attempt to hop IPs in order to evade blocks or to cause more disruption (such shenanigans do happen by users who know this, but it's usually very obvious when you see it). If you see edits by different IPv6 addresses in a situation like this and where the left-half of the IP blocks are the same but the right-half of the IP blocks are different, this is very likely why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request (39.48)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Please can a rangeblock be placed on the 39.48 range? It's part of a LTA range, with a couple of blocks in the past 24hrs alone, but this goes back a lot longer than that. Here are a few examples from today:

• 39.48.181.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 39.48.195.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 39.48.157.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 39.48.224.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Back this morning at 39.48.176.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also reported at WP:AIV). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: is this the same editor from Special:Contributions/39.57.0.0/17? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: - Yes, one and the same. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Using 39.48.170.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) today. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I range blocked 39.48.128.0/17 for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again NRP. Much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of unsourced information

An IP user, 42.110.153.26, has made multiple edits in which they are removing content from articles and placing a generic comment of "unreferenced section". It does not appear that they are adding any additional content nor references to the articles in which they are editing. I have reached out to the IP user via their talk page but I doubt that they will respond. Shall we treat this as a vandal? Please advise. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 20:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They were blocked before you posted this. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At a quick glance, many of their removals are good; Belgharia still oozes old world charm of Bengal. The cosmopolitan culture of new age Bengal hasn't yet penetrated the town. [53] is clearly non-encyclopedic. For [54], the bus-route to the high school may not be necessary, but the lack of references isn't the main reason to remove it; the information could fairly obviously be verified on an online mapping service. The IP editor probably should sign up for an account if they're going to make potentially-controverial edits like this, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Xaero: the IP is blocked for 31 hours. I suggest keeping an eye on them and look at their actions once the ban expires. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the edits that were made by the IP user even though they are unreferenced material in the articles as good measure. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 20:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to check, Mr Xaero - are you saying that you have reinstated all of their removals? power~enwiki indicated that he thought that many of their removals were good - the one he quoted certainly seems unencyclopedic, and should not have been reinstated. Did you check through them first and only reinstate the dubious ones? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit _(sigh) - yes I reverted all edits. However, I am looking at the articles in which had the information removed and attempting to provide sources. If a source is unable to readily be found I am adding the {{Unreferenced section}} or {{Citation needed}} to the areas in question. _{(Please don't hit me hard with the ban hammer)} — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 12:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed tag is provably better than removal for most of them, but the problem with the one quotes above is the style, rather than the sourcing - it's unencylopedic puffery, a source wouldn't make it any better. There weren't that many edits, I'll take a look through this afternoon and review for style (unless you get there first). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I plan on removing the information that is clearly unencylopedic as it should not have been included in the first place. Sadly though most article pertaining to locations within India are filled with this "information". — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 14:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what's been stated above; I don't see issues with most of the edits by this IP user that I spot-checked. As stated by Girth Summit, adding the {{cn}} or {{Citation needed}} templates would have been preferred in many of these cases, but it was certainly okay to remove the unreferenced content altogether for the most part if such content was being challenged. Mr Xaero, next time you run into a situation like this, it's always best to review each edit before you simply roll them all back. This way, you don't risk restoring serious violations of policy back to an article, and it ultimately means less having to "undo an undo", which means less clicking required for you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Okpeletier (talk) creating hoaxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user has been repeatedly creating articles (and on their userpage) of a bogus TV series "Tea Queens". They have claimed that this is part of a school project here. Grounds for a block? CoolSkittle (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They haven't repeated it since their final warning. This isn't a brand new account, making contributions like Draft:The Walking Dead (season 10) (not ideal, but not a hoax). Instead, I propose the following: Okpeletier is indefinitely topic-banned from creating pages. This may be appealed at any time. This is due to lack of comprehension of WP:V and problematic page creations, and I would suggest revocation after some solid, sourced, article work. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Taking at face value their student status, I've asked them to edit no further until responding here and linked them to WikiEdu's Student Training Modules. We might want to post to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard is they are a student. It may be a whole class that needs to be brought into the fold.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure what to make of User:Okpeletier/sandbox current iteration. A TV show that premiered next year. I went ahead and blocked them indefinitely and told them they must respond to our concerns to be unblocked. Any admin should feel free to unblock at their discretion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Could this quality for G10? Quoting from the sandbox: "The Assistant to the Supreme, [name removed], has the most powers of any dumb bitch in the world. The Assistant to the Assistant to the Supreme, [name removed], is the biggest bitch going and also has the diabetes." CoolSkittle (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My word! Did not read that far. Kinda strains the "school project" notion. Unless this is a breaching experiment.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Not G10. Describes a character in the fictional series running in creator's head. Looks G3 to me. Unless someone can come up with a resonable explanation.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely or until they respond. Any admin can unblock at their discretion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick read; the references to 'the Supreme' make me think this is their pretend version of a new season of American Horror Story: Coven combined with Scream Queens. Unless 'vandalize Wikipedia' is part of a school project, there's no believability here and it can be safely removed as a G3 for sure (I will admit though, I laughed at the text. Not for here for sure, but they'd do well on Uncyclopedia). Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amitkr5339

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Amitkr5339 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amitkr5339 has been told on numerous occasions that when he creates articles he must include references and demonstrate notability, but he has continued to generate articles with no references. His user talk page is littered with notifications of newly-created pages being moved to draft space because they were not deemed fit to be in mainspace and his contributions page has further newly-created articles without references. I don't know whether the editor fails to understand English, but he obviously has a problem in complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) David and myself have tried to assume good faith and have treated Amitkr5339 as a new user, trying to explain the issues with his edits and how to use refs etc. He does read the messages (diff) but it appears as though, this user is not bothered to respond. He does understand English and on one rare occasion (diff), he has replied on his own talk page. He has stated [55] that he has some kind of an emotional / professional connection with Sheikhpura district Cricket club in Bihar (a part of Bihar Cricket Association) and his edits are mostly related to the WP:Cricket and other sports. He has used WP:AFC in past but it seems after few rejections has started creating articles on main space again. I believe a restriction to mandatorily use WP:Article wizard to create new articles should be placed on this user. With failure to do so, leading to incremental blocks. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith too, however in this case, this pattern has been going on several months with little or no comms from the editor to address the concerns. I'd support a soft-block which can be lifted if/when they reply to it AND acknowledge the problems these new articles cause. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked. User has shown no willingness to address concerns. I am happy to unblock if they want to participate in this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems harsh. But it is not unusual for ANI. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not harsh at all. User has had amply opportunity to discuss these concerns. Bringing it here was the option of last resort. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block and editing restriction I think other avenues have been exhausted and that the problems are exhausting.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock request

There appears to be a user/users from an IP range constantly adding random countries to Supermarket articles without specific references.

Please see examples here:

94.236.195.28 94.236.211.207 94.236.136.133 and today 94.236.134.63

[[56]] [[57]] [[58]] Angryskies (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is disruptive but I'm no expert at rangeblocks. The addresses are not part of the same subnet (eg 94.236.194.0/23 only covers one of the addresses) and it looks like it would at least a /17 rangeblock to cover all of them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, correct, per the calculator, Special:Contributions/94.236.134.63/17 should cover all of these. Home Lander (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Which, I think, amounts to blocking a whole Bulgarian ISP? GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, hell if I know. Home Lander (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The calculator did not say "forbidden", so I did. Please check my work. Special:Block/94.236.134.63/17.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two people who do most of the editing on 94.236.128.0/17. They seem to use different computers, but their edits are behaviorally indistinguishable from each other (both add unsourced countries to supermarkets). Assuming these are the same person, there really isn't much collateral to speak of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new to rangeblocks and must rely on the calculator.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Range blocks can be dangerous. The system puts hard limits on how wide they can be, but it won't warn you when you block an entire country from editing Wikipedia. You can always ask a checkuser if you're not sure whether it's safe. They can check for collateral damage and might have advice. If you take notes, you can sometimes figure out how an ISP's network is set up. Some of them are easier to figure out than others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I was staying at a hotel a few weeks ago and the entire complex was affected by a range block that had been imposed for months. I could read but not edit. Whoever prompted this block I'm sure was long gone from this hotel but anyone who stayed there who got the urge to edit the 'pedia was unable to do so until April. Frustrating. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Not all IPs, ranges, and networks will be clear to us when investigating disruption. Many times, the fact that we believe IP addresses are public and/or label IP blocks as {{anonblock}} is due to the frequency and diversity of the edits and disruption coming from the address, not because we were able to find this out from a WHOIS or other kind of tool. Collateral damage in some form is inevitable in some situations; cases can become complex and some blocks (and the accepted collateral damage) deemed necessary, and humans aren't perfect... we all make mistakes. The three things that all admins should take away from this discussion is to always check the contribs of IP ranges you're looking into for potential collateral damage, block as small of ranges as necessary and for the shortest duration of time necessary in order to stop the disruption at-hand, and ask for help or defer the case to another administrator if you're not technically knowledgeable and/or don't have a good understanding of IP ranges, CIDR notation, and range blocking. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

In that case, it looks good. I'm not really comfortable blocking /17 (about 32,000 IP addresses) without a CU checking for collateral first, but this seems to have worked out okay. It's one of the few times I think it might be worth asking for CU at the next elections... GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this vandal. 14:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Angryskies (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. Glad to help

I checked the contribs for the range and saw mo recent constructive activity. To try to minimize disruption I blocked anons only and allowed account creation, figuring if they created an account got into trouble, that would be all for them with that username. I also limited duration to 1 month based on the time since the last constructive edit to minimize collateral damage. (Having the checkuser it would help limit collateral damage even more. Maybe someday.)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sabeekaimranpakistan

Sabeekaimranpakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
:I see nothing wrong with this users edits, they just seem to be run of the mill sport stats updates. @Tornado chaser: You need to learn how to Assume good faith in the future before running straight to ANI, you very well could have just asked Noodz what they where doing on his/her talk page. @Noodz53211: Please try and be more civil in the future, there is no need for anger.TheMesquito^buzz 05:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This user has been making disruptive edits to the article Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent[[59]] by placing India in the allies section with absolutely no sourcing to back up these claims. Here are some diff's of the user's disruptive editing[[60]][[61]]. I suspect additionally that the user is a sockpuppet of Abhishek9779 as this block evader through other IP addresses has been making disruptive edits, until Rzvas who is part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit stopped the block evader's disruptive editing on various different pages such as for Frontier Corps and Inter-Services Intelligence.-Mountain157 (talk)

• Sabeekaimranpakistan edits infreequently. I left them a warning about unsourced edits. No call on the possible socking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MCazenave/WPFOOTY

Hello all. I'm unfortunately here to report/start a discussion about User:MCazenave and their edits regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Football articles. First time I've done one of these, so apologies if anything I've done is incorrect.

MCazenave has been an editor since 2017 and has continuously edited a variety of association football articles, mostly in regards to Chilean football. While their edits are welcomed as that part of WPFOOTY is under-edited, they are constantly adding content to articles without leaving a reliable source to back them up - from what I've seen, they rely on an external link (Soccerway and/or BDFA - both reliable) having the correct information at their time of edit. It seems MCazenave heavily edits based on transfer rumours, a few examples here:

→ Tobías Figueroa (diff1)

→ Iván Sandoval (Chilean footballer) (diff2)

→ Mariano Barbieri (diff3)

I've reached out via their talk page and via edit summaries when I've reverted but have had no response at all. With the Iván Sandoval article, I asked for a reliable source and they (kind of) provided one. I say kind of as it was a source that stated a deal was almost completed, which I had already mentioned in my initial revert edit summary that it wasn't sufficient. I let that slide as I didn't want to get into a silly edit war over something that was indeed close (the deal has since been completed but my points stand). It seems my issues with MCazenave have been an issue for a while, User:GiantSnowman contacted the user via their talk page back in 2017 about unsourced content (with no response?) and it seems nothing much has changed.

Lastly, I must state that I do not believe this user is a bad editor. As I mentioned and have mentioned to them, their edits to the Chilean side of WPFOOTY are certainly needed but I feel it's becoming disruptive - if unintentional. I'm not sure what the right course of action is. R96Skinner (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner, if you want anyone to take action here, you need to supply diffs, that is, specific edits that this editor has made, that you believe are disruptive or troublesome. It's not enough to point to an article, administrators want to just click links to see what is going on, not search them out themselves. More work for you but it will more likely result in action. Look at other reports on this page that have received some replies to see what I mean.209.152.44.201 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

On it. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Much better! 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - I have a few important things to note in this discussion:

• First, the use of "edit summaries" do not count as attempts to reach out or communicate with other editors or users, contribute to discussions, or warn other users regarding their violations of Wikipedia policy or their noncompliance with certain Wikipedia guidelines. If somebody violates a policy or otherwise causes some issue or problem that needs to be corrected and addressed, you should always reach out to the user directly and each time this happens. Be civil and descriptive in each of your messages and include all relevant links to help the user (such as the diff to the edit in question, a link to the relevant policy or guideline, and other links necessary). When addressing content disputes, you need to start the relevant talk page discussions (if an active one doesn't already exist), ping the user involved, and follow-up with a message on their user talk page pointing them to the discussion. Aside from bringing the issues to their attention and doing what's outlined in Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol - if anything, it creates a trail of documentation so that later, you can start a noticeboard discussion like this one and you can easily report repeated issues involving another editor by supplying diff links demonstrating all of your attempts to reach out and notify the user, discuss the problem, and talk to them about it to no avail.
• Second, I see that this user makes a lot of edits in the football topic area (particularly to BLP articles that involve football). Spot-checking the user's contributions show me that this user doesn't add any references to support their edits (most I checked were changes to the information contained in the article's infobox). Depending on the content being added or changed, adding unreferenced content to a BLP is a big no-no. However, the diffs you provided point to an edit the user made yesterday, but the others point to edits made back on the 13th of January. That's fine, but for me to consider administrative action (if needed and/or applicable), I need to see diffs of recent or current edits that show repeated violations of policy, and repeated attempts to talk to the user (I do see that you've talked to them directly in two separate discussions, but I don't see warnings of increased emphasis or severity such as a 'final warning'). I'll also note that this user has made zero edits to the talk or user talk Wikipedia namespaces, so there's obviously a failure to communicate here. I'll do some more digging and add more note as I find them, but it would be very helpful if such information could be supplied next time.

Do know that I'm not trying to rip you a new one, tear you down, treat you like an idiot or a new user who doesn't know anything, embarrass you, or discourage you from reporting issues or violations of policy when they need to be reported. :-) I'm just trying to explain what things we look for in noticeboard reports and exactly why they're important so you understand and will be able to keep this in mind should you face issues or disputes like this in the future. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Oshwah. I wasn't sure what order to do things as this is the first time in five years on Wikipedia that I've seen the need to report a user. I should've been more thorough in looking at the way to do things, my apologies! I presumed edit summaries in reverts would be OK as it notifies the user when the revert occurs, but as that isn't the case then I fully understand and will remember that for the future. In recent months, I have started to contact users via their talk pages whenever I revert so we can understand each other - in case I'm wrong too. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to explain things to me clearly - I appreciate it. R96Skinner (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - No worries; this is why I try and take time to explain and help. :-) If you're able and if you can, do you have diffs of very recent edits by that you can provide that clearly show where this user has added unsourced content and where it was blatantly problematic? There's a lot of edits to go through - it would be a great help if you could go through, locate diffs from the user's edits today or yesterday, and provide a list of them so I can take a look. Let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure! No edits since yesterday, but:

→ 23/01 - Santiago Wanderers - diff1 - They added a section a little while back to the football club's article for "2019 Summer transfers" (diff2), which lists ins and outs from this month but they are unsourced. They have done that for all other clubs in the Chilean Primera Division and Primera B de Chile, as seen over at Club Deportivo Universidad Católica (diff3), Club Universidad de Chile (diff4), Deportes Iquique (diff5), O'Higgins F.C. (diff6) and many others - none of which are sourced.

→ 23/01 - Agustín Parra - diff7 - They've added to the Agustín Parra article stating the player has retired, no sourcing. BDFA was already listed as an external link but it doesn't say Parra has retired, or even left.

→ 23/01 - José Luis Jiménez - diff8 - According to their edits, he is now a player of Santiago Morning. However, no sources have been left and the article itself doesn't even have Soccerway or BDFA listed as external links. Similar story at Francisco Piña (diff9) and Francisco Lara Uribe (diff10) (both 23/01), though them articles had the ext. links listed which confirm the transfer but it seems that's a coincidence given what I mentioned with José Luis Jiménez.

→ 23/01 - Hugo Bascuñán - diff11 - Same as the above, no sort of sourcing added - they seem to be relying on BDFA which doesn't have the player at Santiago Morning.

→ 23/01 - Francisco Pizarro (footballer) - diff12 - Arguably a sign of this user's potential disruption. No source given for the player's departure from Santiago Morning, nor even for the player's arrival (and subsequent four appearances) back in August 2018 when they edited (diff13). External links BDFA and FootballDatabase have no evidence of said stint with the club, though the NFT link does but doesn't specify any appearances.

If any more examples need to be added Oshwah, I will do so.

As a side note, while looking through this user's edits, I noticed they joined within months of User:Durneydiaz's indefinite blocking. This is pure speculation on my part, but is it possible they are the same user? Both Durneydiaz and MCazenave have similar edit histories and tendencies, with little-to-no interaction. Only a thought. R96Skinner (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Dream Focus requesting two way interaction ban with Hijiri88

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I left Wikipedia to get away from him, but was told he had been self blocked for a few weeks, so returned. He apparently is following my contributions still, and felt the need to post a long rant about me at the Biographies of living persons talk page. [62]

Among his usual nonsense accusations include him blaming me for some anonymous IP posting nonsense on my talk page back in November, which I reverted minutes after it was posted and I got an email someone posted on my talk page, he somehow noticing that and ranting about it back then, accusing everyone imaginable of it, then deciding to blame me. I then listed reasons on my talk page why it clearly wasn't me, then just gave up trying to reason with him and just ignored him.

I would like him to stop accusing me of that and other nonsense. Can someone just look at what he posted and tell me if you consider that acceptable for him to post that there? I have tried my best to avoid him, but he refused to stop following my contributions and criticizing everything I did, I having to leave Wikipedia to get away from him. Dream Focus 05:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88 here. There's a big difference between commenting on whether a no-context diff is "acceptable to post that there" (in short, while a comment that was all about how the OP was acting in bad faith would be inappropriate for BLPN in general, in context I was explaining why I was posting logged out, in order to shoot down any "block evasion" accusations, before giving a policy-based argument that the talk page discussion in question should be rev-delled) and supporting a sanction for someone who has done nothing wrong in this case. Dream Focus harassed me for months before eventually getting blocked, continued to monitor my edits extremely closely even after that point, and five months later immediately reemerged once I posted a retirement message ("I ... was told he had been self blocked for a few weeks" is a lie; he started editing more than a day before I was blocked[63][64]). I would be happy with a one-way interaction ban to keep DF off my back, or with him perhaps being blocked for his repeated textual plagiarism and IDHT regarding the same[65][66] or TBANned for his attacks on "illegal immigrants" (which apparently for him includes everyone other than US citizens).

Please note that while the problem I had with DF that I brought to ANI last July did get somewhat out of hand, and a few editors supported a "no fault" two-way IBAN just to shut it up, it instead ended with no consensus for such action, and later discussions were essentially "DF needs to leave Hijiri alone"; it was not my intention for this dispute to flare up here again, and I apologize to the community for this happening, but you must appreciate that the flare-up in this case is 100% DF's doing, since it was him who spent the last five months closely monitoring my edits for any indication that I would leave the project temporarily or permanently.

I also would not oppose an admin removing User:Bishonen's block of me. Sorry Bish, but I have cheered up somewhat since requesting the block, and would very much like to return to building the encyclopedia; it was my intention to just let your block expire, but this incident has essentially forced me to post logged out a few times, and I don't want to deal anyone accusing me of "block-evading" for doing so. I still probably won't edit much for the next week or so (busy IRL), so it's really just a formality. I am also aware of the "don't unblock" condition, which is why I can take or leave an unblock, but if I'm denied an unblock because of the pre-set condition that I agreed to before changing my mind, I still shouldn't have to be accused of "block evasion".

103.5.140.152 (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted an edit someone did [67] and then posted immediately after on the talk page explaining why. Talk:Undocumented_youth_in_the_United_States#They_are_not_"Undocumented_students",_they_have_ample_documents_on_them. Anyway, I have not monitored him closely since why would I do that? Someone noticed he was going to be gone for a few weeks, emailed me, so I started editing again. He can cherry pick edits from a long period of time and take things out of context, and I don't want to get into a long discussion no one will read. There is no possible reason for him to be following my contributions or talking about me, other than for harassment. Dream Focus 06:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't do this but meh. Will you both just leave each other the fuck alone and not force the community to do it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish that were possible but he isn't going to stop this unless there is a two way interaction ban. Dream Focus 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm talking to you with this reply, I don't give a fuck what he does at the moment. I do give a fuck what you do, and am saying you need to leave him alone. You left wikipedia because you felt that he was unfairly pursuing. Maybe he was, but again since I'm talking to you, I don't give a fuck about that at the moment. I do care that when I visit your talk page I find you were once unblocked and told explicitly to completely leave him alone but then were reblocked because you kept talking about him. This tells me that clearly you aren't just able to leave him alone either. Frankly his post at BLP/N spoke for itself and didn't reflect well on him although he did have a point that this comment of yours [68] seems very bad unless that's what the person actually said. (I don't know because if it was revdeleted.) If you wanted to respond to anything, it was probably the only thing worth responding to. But you also could have simply left it be since he wasn't actually reverting you or something. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Drag (clothing) is part of the transgender series of articles. Not sure how that would bother anyone. Don't remember exactly what wording he used in the article, it blocked now, but the talk page still shows his transgender accusations. Anyway, back on topic, I was blocked for complaining about him following me around and talking trash about me nonstop, then believing I could continue talking to editors about the case on my talk page, that bothering some people. He has no reason to keep following me around and posting like he just did at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#vandal_claiming_astronaut's_daughter_is_really_a_transgender_boy. Dream Focus 06:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. Regretful as Hijiri doesn't like these ibans and it would be a shame to see him discouraged from editing. For some reason I've always found H rather charming, and he seems to have made hugely valuable contributions to our coverage of S.E. Asian topics. On the Darkknight thread, BMK made what seemed a most wise point about there being so much history involving Hijiri and the other editors that's its hard to disentangle whos at fault. Perhaps that's the case with H & Dream too, but as I spent several hours looking at it, let me offer a summary. For about the first few months of their relationship, while H was the one initiating contact, it was Dream who was largely at fault. Since about mid June 2018 though, it's been almost entirely H whos been keeping the feud alive. Dream has repeatedly appealed for H to leave him alone, but H just won't let things go. It's not really that simple, but I think that's a fair summary. As H already has at least one iban on his record re the Darkknight, I don't see any great harm in him having another one. It ideally shouldn't need the community to spend huge amounts of time analysing the history to determine who is too blame.

@Dream – FWIW , I think H is largely right re Immigrants. The sceptical view on immigrants is something I find rather harmful, but it is a clear majority view in many countries and so it should be represented on Wikipedia for NPOV. But the thing is, there's a fine line between representing the view and slipping into xenophobia. You know I think you're awesome, but its not clear to me that you have the skills to tread that line. There's many other topics where your'e contributions are of great quality. Or if you do keep editing immigration articles, be extra careful with your wording and in listening to what others say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading to strong support for these reasons. Hijiri88 seems at some risk of a long block, and the iban seems a much better option. Especially now H has apologised for not respecting Bishonens rules & for wasting the communities time, a block extension seems unwarranted. As per Swarm, from H's POV they might have thought they had good reason to launch the attack on the BLP board.

Many editors seem to acknowledge what a loss it would be do be without H's good contributions, but not so much as been said about why it would be good for us to protect Dream with the 2-way iban. Admittedly Dream's edits in the early part of the feud were highly reprehensible. But as someone who had known Dream for over a decade, it was totally out of character. Dream's kindness, productivity, and helpfulness to another's has seen him hailed as a model editor. A quick glance of Dream's talk should show his fine editing has won him much appreciation over the years from various members of the community. A 2 way iban gives us the best chance to keep two editors who, in very different ways, are excellent contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's disheartening to be back here again while Hijiri88 is still under a self-imposed block from the last time, but it's clear they just can't let it go. This comment at BLPN was entirely unnecessary. The discussion was a quite-reasonable one brought by DF to the noticeboard. Hijiri is supposed to be taking a break, not following other editors around to attack them in random threads they start. The comment itself amounts to throwing mud to see what sticks — "posting plagiarized text, OR and virulently xenophobic gibberish", a largely-unevidenced personal attack; "DF is still hounding me"; "illegitimate sockpuppetry"; "suddenly showing back up immediately when I was briefly blocked in August, and then again when I posted a retirement message earlier this month"; even supposing all that were true, in what possible way is it relevant to a BLPN discussion about another editor claiming a child is transgender? The comment does, eventually, come down to the matter at hand, by taking a comment DF made out of context and saying, in about as many words, that if it were a comment made about a living person then it would be a BLP violation. That may be true, but what is the point of saying it when it wasn't a comment made about a living person? "Focus on the content, not the editor" is advice Hijiri badly needs to take to heart. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose two-way IBAN - What this absolutely looks like is DF seeing that Hijiri was on a self-imposed block from his account (and let's be clear that Anyway, I have not monitored him closely since why would I do that? Someone noticed he was going to be gone for a few weeks, emailed me, so I started editing again is ridiculous, disingenuous bullshit), and decided to use that opening to stir up some shit at ANI, knowing Hijiri might be limited in responding. It's hard for me to see this as anything other than opportunistic and a bad-faith maneuver. The previous discussion of an IBAN found a lot more concern about DF's behavior, and at this point I wouldn't mind seeing a boomerang in the form of a one-way IBAN for DF. And, for the record, Hijiri should abide by his self-requested block and just stick to a break instead of showing up to edit under an IP. Grandpallama (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Changing to an oppose, based upon yet another WP:IDHT interaction with DF. Whatever might've prompted the current report, DF is the ongoing problem. Grandpallama (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• comment Could'na said it better-- "Hijiri should abide by his self-requested block and just stick to a break instead of showing up to edit under an IP." You know that picture of a statue holding its head in its hand captioned "not this again?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Did you read the rant against me he posted at [69] just hours ago? I then brought this to ANI. He is clearly not limited in responding since he did post here already. He also posted what appears to be a response to GoldenRing on his talk page [70] instead of here. Is there anything that keeps any IP addresses from posting at ANI? Dream Focus 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  YOU were told to stop obsessing about Hijiri, to stop following his comments, to stop worrying about what he says, to stop bringing drama here and elsewhere regarding your inability to let go of past conflicts. And here you are, again, doing exactly the thing that got you blocked before; I don't care what Hijiri said--I care that you are demonstrating an intractable attitude that previous warnings and blocks have apparently not remedied. I already advocated for a one-way IBAN, but maybe you just need to be indeffed until you figure out that you need to leave it alone. Grandpallama (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  So I should let him say whatever insulting nonsense about me that he wants, anywhere he sees me posting, and not be able to file an ANI complaint about it? Would you find it acceptable if someone did that to you? Dream Focus 11:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  You. Don't. Listen. Leave it alone, find something else to do with your time, and stop worrying about Hijiri. Grandpallama (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Back to Hijiri Hijiri88 damn! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC). You could request unblock on your talk page or Email Bishonen. This blocked-but-using-an-IP business is unsettling. With all the possible places one could edit here, you happen to show up at a post of DreamFocus'? That's just silly. Support IBAN.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88 has been notified on their talk page. I may be wrong about this, never having tried it, but if they have email notifications set up for their page then won't they be notified even if not on Wiki at the time? FWIW, I agree that using the IP method is unsettling but my thought would explain the "of all the bars in all the world" situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Sitush: I think this comment was in reference to Hijiri88's IP comment on the BLPN discussion linked above - or am I missing something? I don't think Hijiri88 was notified of that discussion on their TP. And @Dlohcierekim: Hijiri and Hijiri88 are, AFAICT, no the same editor. Poor guy now thinks he's being discussed at ANI... GoldenRing (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, cripes. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: Sorry, no. I did not read the aforementioned post. I'm not interested in participating in this passion play to a greater extent than this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  That post was meant for the guy before you. Thank you for participating. Dream Focus 12:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Curly Turkey: You have completely over looked the facts of this particular event. Hijiri88, though blocked at their own request, returned as an anon to interject themselves into a thread by Dream Focus with utterly spurious and off-topic "content". ANd I think the mutual IBAN is the least restrictive and most beneficial to the project of alternatives.-- -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim: "You have completely over looked ..."—have I really?

"returned as an anon"—no, he opened by declaring who he was.

"the mutual IBAN is the least restrictive"—less restrictive than letting it go with a warning? Obviously not.

"most beneficial"—no, the IBAN DF requests would keep someone out of his hair so he could continue making problematic edits. Your support would contribute to enabling that—which would "benefit" DF, not the community or the project. This has happened before, particularly at WP:JAPAN, where it took a year and a half for ANI to finally deal with the fallout, and there are still tainted articles that need to be sorted through. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what happened at WP:JAPAN, it having nothing to do with me. He was banned from editing certain topics at various times, so I assume it was one of those topic bans. I remember another editor claiming that you helped him get around that block, he mentioning things he wanted edited on your talk page such as [71] and you editing for him. Then after the block ended he posted he no longer needed your help in editing those sorts of articles. [72] When Arbcom limited him to one revert per page, he asked you directly to revert things for him. [73] [74] [75]. Those three examples are pretty obvious. If you are determined to follow me around and do his work for him, I suppose I need an interaction ban with you as well. Also you were told at ANI back in November to stop following the contributions of Flyer22 for the same thing you are suggesting you should do to me now. [76] Dream Focus 00:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting misrepresentation of the Flyer22 case. You're really bending over backwards to get people to stop looking at your problematic edits.

"I remember another editor claiming that you helped him get around that block"—I remember that an IBAN prevents me from naming that user. This is a disgusting tactic to trap me into breaking that IBAN—and I do recall saying the IBAN would be weaponized, don't you, Dlohcierekim? Will the answer be to grant DF a slew of IBAN requests, so he can continue to make these sorts of edits without interference? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again he mentions the "problem edit" where I reverted someone's edit because some of their changes seemed ridiculous, and then started a discussion on the talk page immediately after that to discuss it. Talk:Undocumented_youth_in_the_United_States#They_are_not_"Undocumented_students",_they_have_ample_documents_on_them He showed up after me and reverted me, but no one has participated in the discussion on the talk page. Why do both of these guys keep mentioning this as an excuse for their behavior? Do we need them following me around constantly just to prevent me from somehow destroying Wikipedia by daring to undo an edit and try to discuss things in a civilized manner on the talk page of that article? Also I wasn't aware he wasn't allowed to name the other editor, nor is there some sort of whatever trap he claims I masterminded just now. Seems to be changing the subject hoping no one clicks on the links to see the evidence for themselves. Dream Focus 00:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"I wasn't aware he wasn't allowed to name the other editor"—obviously untrue, as only one person has ever made this claim, and it was in that ANI that resulted in my only IBAN. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support. Basically, what GoldenRing said. DF makes a perfectly reasonable post to BLPN ([77]) asking about how to deal appropriately with a clear BLP issue. Absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with that post. Hijiri88 (well, presumably Hijiri88) for no apparent reason whatsoever then decides to reply to this post from a logged out IP ([78]) with phrases such as "(I am back) partly to keep Dream Focus from disrupting the encyclopedia by posting plagiarized text, OR and virulently xenophobic gibberish", "DF is still hounding me" (!), and suggests DF has posted what "borders on transphobia, and ... would probably constitute revdel-worthy BLP violation" (this is the post in question, I don't see it at all). There is clearly an axe to grind on Hijiri88's part, this is a user who has already been slapped with one interaction ban this month for BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and who is very much at risk of turning this temporary 'retirement' into a permanent forced one. We don't need this rubbish. Fish+Karate 13:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh and pinging Bishonen - Bish, would you consider remove the talk page access block from Hijiri88, so he can confirm whether or not he does want to end his self-imposed block, and whether this IP is definitely him. Cheers. Fish+Karate 13:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support And WTF? he block evades (to my mind yes it is a block evasion, if you are blocked you are blocked, not "you are blocked unless you do not want to be", he could have asked for the block to just be lifted) a self requested block to post this [[79]]. Of course this all assumes this is Hijiri88 (can not this be checked by admins tools?).Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed - if this isn't a violation of the privacy policy. I don't think it is, since the IP claims to be Hijiri88, so if they're connected then he's already provided the information, but that's above my pay grade. GoldenRing (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Decline as it is a violation of the privacy policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also just notices, his block experires anyway in just over a week, this was so urgent it could not wait?Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose as I fear the timing of this is an attempt by DreamFocus to win by planting a flag on articles they want to edit while Hijri88 is on a voluntary block. Regardless, I dislike somebody who is away from Wikipedia for a break being dragged to the dramah board while they're not in a position to properly advocate for themselves. I am also prepared to overlook this single instance of technical block evasion in this circumstance as it was only to speak up at the AN/I when dragged here by another user who knew before posting that Hijri88 was under a block. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Simonm223: You do realise this whole thing kicked off because Hijiri88 evaded his block to post at a BLPN thread that DF started? That's two instances of "technical" block evasion, the first attacking DF apropos of nothing. GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also I cannot see any mention of Hijiri88 at that BLPN thread before he posted (again assuming it is him). He seems to have just turned up almost at random to attack anther edd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• The correct venue for this might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If the IP is Hijiri88, this is WP:EVASION as there is no exception for WP:SELFBLOCK for evasion. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Two separate issues, but I have launched it here [[80]]. But as I said the IBAN is different form the socking (assuming it is).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I actually completely missed that. And it does change things. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral I struck through my previous !vote based on the information provided by GoldenRing - I still don't really think a 2 way iban is going to solve anything and I think implementing a block extension on somebody who has buyer's remorse for a voluntary block is overkill - which means there's not much to do except... well... nothing really. Roll our eyes and back away perhaps? However if other people see differently based on the evidence provided I don't particularly care enough to mount any sort of defense beyond just saying really guys? REALLY? Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Re:wait No, we need the info now, and this could be a Joe job, in which case I owe Hijiri88 an apology.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• The IPs above are Hijiri; he has confirmed it to me via e-mail. I blocked him on 11 Jan at his own request, and after he assured me that he was on board with the conditions at User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. The block is to expire on Feb 2, and one of my conditions is "I will not unblock you on request, and I ask that no other admin unblock you without consulting me first.(Barring exceptional circumstances, I'll be dead against it.) .. So, really, don't ask if you're not serious!" Other conditions are that I remove wikimail and talkpage access. Obviously, my conditions aren't binding for other admins, and I won't resent them for ever or anything if they should unblock Hijiri or restore talkpage access, but I'll record here that I'm against it. I promised him I would be against it, and he should be able to trust me. Right now he no longer wants me to stick to my guns, I know, but there's also the little matter of ruining the trust for others who may self-request a block from me in the future. IMO, he should respect the conditions he originally accepted, and posting from an IP isn't exactly respecting them. But strictly speaking I suppose that is his business, not mine. I'll leave it to other admins to determine whether it's to be defined as block evasion (though I certainly have an opinion). I'm glad to hear Hijiri has cheered up somewhat, of course. Was there anything else? Bishonen | talk 15:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC).
• Support two-way interaction ban, per FeydHuxtable. At this point, a two-way interaction ban comes across as a functional solution. Per comments from admins on Dream Focus' talk page stating that Dream Focus cannot speak about Hijiri88 whatsoever without risking being further blocked, it is inherently unfair that Dream Focus cannot defend themself while Hijiri88 continues to smear Dream Focus, now into 2019. Having WP:ASPERSIONS cast against oneself while simultaneously being muzzled from defending oneself from such claims, while the other user has free reign to continue attacking, is just not right at all. So, make it a two-way interation ban. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per NorthAmerica1000. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Was involved in the BLPN but in review, I see zero evidence that H has had anything to do with the Scott Kelly page, so for H to show up (as an IP) and complain about DF is pretty much textbook hounding, and seems to flaunting the situation. There is nothing DF seemingly did wrong in handling the Kelly page, the vandal report, and the BLP/N posting, so there was no reason for H to show up an try to get him banned. --Masem (t) 16:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support as the simpler solution of Hijiri simply abiding by his self-requested block somehow isn't sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—Hijiri should be warned, but think of the consequences of treating "evasions" of self-imposed blocks the same as community-imposed ones. DF has a history of problematic editing; here's a recent, despicable one that I undid. Is the community going to IBAN anyone who checks and cleans up DF's mess?
  Seriously, a handful of the commenters here are way too triggerhappy when it comes to Hijiri. Should we call for an IBAN against those who habitually auto-!vote for sanctions against him every time his name shows up at ANI? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the socking (that just makes it that bit worse) it is the deliberate attempt to provoke another edds into earning a block with an egregious and blatant PA that had nothing to do wit the thread. When he knew the user was forbidden form talking about him. The fact he socked to do this also makes it unbelievably crass and contemptuous of the community.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I din't mention socking or PAs. Was this meant as a reply to someone else? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No you mentioned block evasion, but you are technically correct, he block evaded to make a PA, and the fact you ignored the PA is the point, it is the PA that was reported here, not the Block evasion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven: sorry, but are you sure you're responding to me? What do your comments have to do with mine? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pointing out to you what you are ignoring.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Hijiri88 has been warned before, specifically by Cullen328 back in 4 July 2018 (diff), where Cullen stated in part, "The next time one of your countless obsessive disputes with Dream Focus erupts on to the noticeboards, I will block you for a very lengthy period of time. The community is completely fed up with your disruptive behavior." Cullen's warning at the time was further endorsed by admin Alex Shih on the next edit to the user talk page (diff). Now it's January 2019, and Hijiri88 has continued with the same behavior (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Editing through a self requested block is silly, but not the main problem. The main issue is that while under this block they noticed this edit by an editor they had been in dispute with and then followed them to a noticeboard and made a quite frankly bizarre post attacking them, which had no relevance to the boardmitself. If at a time when they want a break from editing they are obsessing over past disputes this much it is probably in their own best interests to enforce a two way iban. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Questions - I think there are two serious questions that have been more or less overlooked here.
  #Dream Focus how exactly did you become aware of Hijiri88's retirement? Refer this (Jan. 12) though it's entirely clear that you were aware of it at least two days prior (Jan 10. 15:49, as your last edit prior was on Nov 20.) within hours of their posting their retirement message (Jan 10. 10:43) on their talk page.
  #Hijiri88 how exactly did you become aware of DreamFocus' return to editing? Refer this (Jan. 23), I'm not aware of any earlier posts that might tie into this (I can't tell a static from dynamic ip). Ideally I'd like an explanation as to how it is you were made aware of an edit to a page that you have never edited.
  You might note that I've underlined the word exactly, exactly should be read as "with specificity". At this stage I am only interested in a timeline of the facts. The responses, or lack thereof, will inform my judgement as to what should be done. I have one further thing to express, but it'll wait for responses. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  I was emailed by two different people who told me he was gone for awhile. When I had left Wikipedia I got emails from more than that from people who agreed it was wrong for me not to be able to complain when someone refused to stop trash talking me all over the place. You can see in his recent rant that started this he accuses me of all sorts of nonsense out of nowhere. This certainly isn't the first time he has done this to me or others. When he can't just change the subject and try to have long drawn out arguments about random unrelated things, he just pretends he is sorry and not going to do it again. I need a two way interaction ban to make him stop this, since there is no other way. Dream Focus 14:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus: Those in houses with transparent roofs ought to be jolly careful what they do with rocks. Several have commented here that, while Hijiri88 has behaved badly, you've not been a saint yourself and his bad behaviour doesn't exonerate you. Drop it. For the love of God, please, drop it. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  See, this is what happens. Mr rnddude asks a question to DF about Hijiri88 here at ANI regarding the matter, and if DF answers, they are then further chastised. I recommend to DF to not answer any more questions here about Hijiri88 if it is going to be held against them in this forum. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  Quite. With all due respect to Mr rnddude, his questions here are absurd. In the middle of a discussion which looks like imposing an IBAN between these two editors, he asks them to pass comment on each other? I agree with Northamerica that neither editor should make any more comments about the other. We have all the evidence we need. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, one of the issues here is how come they both seemed to know what the other was up to when both (supposedly) had retried. It is perfectly reasonable to want suspicions of stalking (for example) allayed (I for one would). Moreover you can say "I came here because I had been invited by bertterrible" without adding "and by the way HArrycrumb is at fault here".Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Come off it. The first two sentences of DF's reply would have sufficed and been passed by without comment. The remainder is raking over all the same garbage - and then they felt it necessary to come back and insert more with the edit summary "hopefully everyone sees a pattern here". Yes, we see the pattern, but I'm not sure it's the one DF was referring to. GoldenRing (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A no-win situation for DF. Don't reply, and risk being chastised. Reply, and then be chastised. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, or, you know, just answer the question that was put and leave it at that and win. GoldenRing (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if DF hadn't answered the question, then you'd have nothing to complain about, other than perhaps that they didn't answer the question. It's a real catch-22. But, I digress. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per GoldenRing, Fish&K, et al. With the IP editing going on, they should thank their lucky stars it's not an indef block instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the IBAN. Also reiterate that this really is the last last chance to avoid a lengthy block. I don't want us to lose Hijiri's valuable content contributions, but it just seems like no matter how many times they promise to improve, it is always followed up (sometimes in the very same post) with more of the same behaviour. Hijiri, *please* take on board Fish & Karate's advice on your talk page. Really take it on board. That means no more attacks on people in edit summaries, no more accusations of hounding, and just staying away from the pages of people you don't get on with. If other people are uncivil to you then that will be noted by others, so let them dig their own graves without joining them. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - if not, this will be rinse, repeat in a few weeks/months. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment How'd they no? It's in the subtext.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eloquence of Cullen and a question

Before I comment on this specific matter, I want to give kudos to the many thousands of productive editors who volunteer to write useful encyclopedia articles, fight vandalism, calmly evaluate articles at AfD, and help out at the help desk and the Teahouse, without ever involving themselves in bizarre obsessive confrontational behavior like these two editors have done for so very long. Those of us who help out at ANI are far less familiar with their usernames because they are simply not disruptive in any way. Yes, Northamerica1000, I gave that warning and Alex Shih endorsed my warning. I consider Hijiri88's comment (editing as an IP) at BLPN to be bizarre, disruptive and unacceptable for four or five reasons. The behavior from DreamFocus discussed here is also quite troubling and I want to emphasize that nothing I say here should be construed as exonerating DreamFocus. I hope that another administrator will evaluate and decide what is appropriate for that editor. As for Hijiri88, my immediate inclination is to impose a lengthy block per my warning in July, 2018. However, there is no rush since they are on a self-imposed block. So, I invite thoughtful input from the blocking administrator Bishonen first of all, and also from any adminstrator or any other editor. Just think things through carefully and try to be positive. Please read that bizarrely inappropriate BLPN post from Hijiri88 and have that matter fresh in your mind. Is there any reason under the sun why I should not extend Hijiri88's block? I will wait 24 hours before acting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unless your question was rhetorical, I'd like to answer. You are so right about all of that. Having watched this with growing nausea and amazement, I can say, "No, there is no reason to not extend Hijiri88's block"...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not write this section heading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No, that was me. It was a new subthread and it is eloquent.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wow. That BLPN post is... wow. That's something. I cannot think of any reason why you should not.--Jorm (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has asked me to post this for him:

I ACCIDENTALLY requested that my talk and email access be removed (I have told Bish, you and several others of this fact), and with those removed I had no way of addressing the fact that I was being hounded in my absence without going to a café and posting as an IP, and still went out of my way to disclose said "block evasion".

Would you mind saying that I have told you (and Bishonen, and Alex Shih) that the terms of my block were a surprise to me and that it was not my intention to have talk or email disabled, and that if the only alternative to simply waiting out the block is to be sanction for the supposed block evasion then I'd be happy to do so?

Hijiri88's comment at BLPN about hounding refers to this comment. Whether it was wise of him to respond to it, I'll leave to the community to decide, but it was not unprovoked or "out of nowhere", as some in this discussion have suggested. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

No Curly, that is incorrect. Here is the only part of Hijiri88's BLP post that mentions Dream's so called "hounding" : '...Also DF is still hounding me; it was pretty bloody obvious he posted that vicious personal attack against me on his talk page...' Clearly the harmless diff you just linked to wasn't said "vicious personal attack". H was referring to this sock post. Your boy originally suggested the post could have been made by perhaps over a dozen editors he'd had past conflict with, or maybe at least one banned editor. Only later did H single out Dream. Not even going to explain the reasons why it's near impossible Dream was really the author of the sock post- it's clear the community knows H isn't exactly impartial when it comes to folk he's feuding with.

@Cullen - the reason not to give H a lengthy block would be that just the 2-way iban may be enough to stop the disruption. That way, we have the chance of benefiting from H's article excellent building work. H also seems to make good, thoughtful input to discussions, as long it they don't involve folk he's been feuding with. That said, FWIW I'd trust that you know best if you decide to extend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

DF's comment was not "harmless" and was clearly made to invoke a reaction. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Please would you explain your comment? I do not understand how the comment was not harmless nor do I understand how the comment was made to invoke a reaction, and the fact that it seemed to me to be harmless is the reason I supported the interaction ban proposal. If it was not harmless then my opinion on this would change. Thanks. Fish+Karate 10:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate: per User talk:Dream Focus#June 2018, User talk:Dream Focus#July 2018, several ANIs, etc Dream Focus has been warned time and again to steer clear and not mention Hijiri. Quotes from Cullen: "Ignore them as if they did not exist"; "The next time one of your countless obsessive disputes with Hijiri88 erupts on to the noticeboards, I will block you for a very lengthy period of time." Quotes from Ritchie333: "Do not talk to or about Hijiri 88 anywhere on Wikipedia"; "if you mention H88 anywhere in any shape or form, the next block will be indefinite". Quote from Boing! said Zebedee: "you need to SHUT UP about Hijiri88, totally and completely, and not utter another word about them while this sanction is in force. NOT ONE WORD! NOT ANYWHERE!"

DF disappears for a while, and as soon as Hijir retires, DF returns and immediately declares to the world that the person he is never supposed to talk about has retired so that now he's "safe" to edit—and opens an ANI the first chance he gets despite multiple warnings not to do so. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Thank you, so when you were referring to DF's comment you weren't referring to his innocuous comment on BLPN (the one for which he got a logged-out response from Hijiri88). I absolutely agree that Dream Focus should not mention - even obliquely - Hijiri88, which he very obviously did upon his return; this is why the IBAN must be two-way. Fish+Karate 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate: if he's already banned from interacting, then how does an IBAN deal with the problem? Despite all the "last chances" he's been given, he's already broken it twice this month—explictly talking about Hijiri à propos de rien, and starting another ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

He isn't formally "banned", he was told (forcibly) back in June to stop talking about Hijiri88. And yes, I have read all the crap from DF on DF's talk page showing he can't let this go either. Formalising this as an interaction ban removes all grey areas, obviates any wikilawyering or dancing around the edges with oblique references to "some people" or "other editors", and allows us to immediately block for any breaches. Fish+Karate 14:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I would point out this mirrors own comments about being hounded in his retirement notice. So if this is hounding so was that. I also find it weird and disturbing that a retired edd is still watching users talk pages. Also is this comment was the problem, why post it at BPLN (where it had not place, that is not what that is for) rather then report it to an admin or post the comment on DF's talk page? It was deliberate disruption and provocation (And even if DF's post was, it was on his talk page, where it can be ignored by everyone else).Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose sanctions for evading a self-requested block, as some have suggested above, at least where that block didn't have the effect of avoiding other sanctions. People change their minds. I understand Bishonen's reasons for (as a rule) not modifying self-requested blocks and fully support that, but that's about her accountability to editors, not those editors' accountability to the community. However, the only reason I can think of that you shouldn't block Hijiri88 for exactly the reasons you describe is to see if an IBAN is sufficient to quell the disruption. I see this as a 50/50 call; this is the second time we've had to impose a community IBAN on the same editor in a month, and that while they're supposedly on a wikibreak. This is also hardly Hijiri88's first time at the rodeo as IBANs are concerned; supposing that the above sanction gains consensus (of which it currently shows every sign), Hijiri88 will have IBANs with Catflap08, John Carter, Darkknight2149 and Dream Focus, all arising from separate circumstances. I couldn't be bothered trying to figure out whether there are expired or lifted IBANs in the past. How many IBANs do we need to impose before we say enough is enough? On the other hand, he does good article work and it would be a shame to lose that, so maybe the IBAN should be given a chance. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I half agree, if it were not for the fact that there is no evidence that his previous IBANS have moderated his attitude (and indeed this looks like an attempt to use a one way IBAN to harass another edd, though DF did not help his case on his talk page). So I am in two minds. On the one had I do not think this will work (ohh it may stop this drama, but not the next users he decides to try and drive of Wikipedia, and yes that is what I think this is), but You (and I suspect others) think it might, and you know him better then I do. So I am neutral on this, but if this does not work will have to change that view.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that Hijiri’s diatribe was provoked by the aforementioned IP attack on him, which, logically, seemed like it was coming from DF. Now, I know there are socks who commit these sort of false-flag operations for fun, but you can’t really blame Hijiri for being that incensed in response. Particularly in the context of the controversial edit made by DF; I know many people who would consider that to be blatant racism. I get it, Hijiri is involved in too much drama sometimes, but I really don’t think the situation is as serious as you’re making it out to be, and a such a draconian, one-sided sanction on Hijiri seems heavy handed. Hijiri is involved in too much drama, sometimes goes too far, and is sometimes flat out wrong. If another IBAN is necessary, so be it. However, I do believe he is a net positive, and would not be in favor of a block over this incident. Such a proposal seems far too aggressive, and inconsiderate of Hijiri’s positive contributions to the project. And, I can’t believe this needs to be pointed out, but a self-block is different from a preventative block, and they’re not binding or not enforceable. I would think that was common sense, but apparently not. Even if an admin, ideologically, wants it to be otherwise.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  10:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I get that Hijiri88 felt they were being provoked, but when you're provoked, you have the option of ignoring it, responding in kind, or finding some unrelated noticeboard discussion and hijacking it to make a bunch of personal attacks. We don't know (and we're unlikely to ever know) whether the IP posting on DF's TP was some random editor or whether it was DF; looking at the timeline, it seems likely to me it was not DF but it might have been. What we do know is that Hijiri88 chose the nuclear option in response. I just really struggle to see that as anything other than deliberately inflaming the situation. Even if you accept that DF's comments on his TP were a violation of some kind and that the IP posting there was him, and even if you accept that Hijiri88 had to do something about it rather than letting it go, Hijiri88 has been here long enough to he ought to know what dispute resolution options are open to him; what he did wasn't dispute resolution but dispute escalation. GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think Swarm's comment that such a draconian, one-sided sanction on Hijiri seems heavy handed is spot-on in terms of considering any further extension of a block for Hijiri. If there's one thing that this conversation is demonstrating, it's that there's a serious divide about how to treat a self-requested block, and the way in which to address that is through policy discussion, and not by introducing a penalty for an editor. I'm also worried that the supposed "block evasion" is a secondary issue that is distracting from the core concern here, which is the behavior of two editors toward each other. I still stand by my earlier statement that the overall history of interaction here suggests that DF is more of a problem than Hijiri, even though recentism seems to have him on people's minds more, but the question of their interactions shouldn't be muddied by the side issue of whether or not someone can be considered to be engaging in block evasion of a self-requested block. Grandpallama (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for extending Hijiri88's block, I will not do so. Instead, I Support a two-way interaction ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No eloquence from Bishonen

Sorry Cullen328, I'm quite reluctant to be drawn into the Dream Focus / Hijiri thing — I don't really have time to read up on it enough to form an opinion, and also I'm pissed off at the way this "self-requested block" has panned out. Maybe I should delete my page offering those kinds of blocks. So no thoughtful input from me, sorry. However, you may now have the benefit of input from Hijiri on his page, as I've restored his tpa, after some e-mail discussion. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

• Some rectifications of names could help. If it was a block, then block evasion sanctions should be applied. If it was not a block, but rather a Bishonen's inventive trick, then it should be named this way, and a some more precise quite a rule, but not really should be disclosed. Pldx1 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Please see User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. I thought self-requested blocks had become deprecated with the advent of scripts that would prevent Wiki-holics from binging. Perhaps they are now deprecated.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bishonen's trick? Inventive? What, what? It fucking was a block. What use would it be if it wasn't? I'm not the only admin who places self-requested blocks, nor did I invent the practice. Compare Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. (Unfortunately it doesn't take much skill to override the scripts Dlohc mentions, at least not the one I'm aware of, so it isn't that useful.) Bishonen | talk 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Maybe it is time to stop a practice that is so easy to ignore, and does not even seem to really serve no function if edds can just ignore it (and indeed does not even seem to be understood or taken seriously by most edds, even those who make use of it (edds, not admins)).Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

She's expressed regret over doing this particular favor. I think in most cases it works out fine. I think this is an example of how important a mutual IBAN is for these two. Obsession is not too strong a word.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I remember when these scripts were all the rage. We weren't to place self-requested blocks anymore-- oh. no! The. New. Thing!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the community intended to deprecate self blocks at some point, but the text at WP:SELFBLOCK has been the same for many years, and they're not prohibited, or even discouraged by policy. In these situations, users are using blocks as a tool for personal reasons. They serve no purpose beyond that. They do not satisfy WP:PREVENTATIVE, and they are not intended to. You cannot enforce a block that is not preventing anything, and there's no reason to give a user a hard time for changing their mind about such a block. If you make a self block deal with an admin who won't overturn it as part of their conditions, that's too bad for you. But, you can't be punished if you decide to edit as an IP. This is all a distraction from the issues at hand.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that is just how I have seen them used "but he is now on a self block, no need for action", on many occasions. I think what this demonstrates is then one thing they are not is an excuse to not take action.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Pldx has been both asked and warned to leave Hijiri alone, not sure why he's incapable of staying uninvolved here.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Dear User:Swarm. My remark was not about a specific user, but about what appears to me as an inventive trick, instead of a preventative measure. When such an inventive trick is broken, and it was broken here, a large majority of people are not of the opinion that any sanctions have to be taken. Since you seems to have doubts about my own personal opinion on the matter, I gleefully states that I also have this opinion that breaking such an inventive trick should not result into any sanction. And therefore, calling it a block is only misleading. This is the second part of my opinion on the matter. Pldx1 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thnks for the link,I've been reading up on self blocks. I'm considering making myself available to make them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Pldx's ax looks pretty sharp by now. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

creation of "self block" section talks about the script back in March of 2007. So it would have been before then. And unchanged since then. I guess we had no policy before that time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Regex expert needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just edited the title blacklist, even though I don't speak regex; if you do, could you review the edit? In the last few minutes, Special:Log/delete has six separate entries in which someone created an orphaned talk page with "mental problem" in the title with a sole purpose of attacking someone. I copied the format from a nearby entry, hoping that it will prevent the creation of both "mental problem" and "mental problems"; did I do it rightly? I figure this will be useful in the future too, because "mental problem" almost never needs to be created (mental problem is a redlink), so any future creations may well be vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well the filter does seem to work ok, and ignores case. Though you can also make pages that look like it but that are not stopped. I won't list them here per WP:BEANS. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - In regex, the '.' means "any single character" and the '*' after it means "0 or more times". So when you surround a phrase like the one you added with ".*" before and after it, you're just saying that the phrase can be located anywhere in the title and if found, flag it as a match. If this is what you want, then yeah it looks just fine. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

.*Mental*problem.* Would this prevent the creation of all pages with those words somewhere? I don't want to allow someone to create "so-and-so is a mental and criminal problem", but I also don't want to block the creation of "Mental issues and problems according to the DSM V". So I think this is the best route, but I could easily be wrong. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - Add a '.' before your insertion of the '*' between "Mental" and "problem" so that it becomes .*Mental.*problem.* and yes, it would - but only in that order. If a page was created with the "problem" before the word "Mental", it wouldn't flag it as a match. That code you shared (.*Mental*problem.* - with the '.' missing) has the '*' after the letter 'l', so the "0 or more" would apply to the l character and would flag titles such as "Mentaproblem" (no l's present) or "Mentallllllproblem" (any amount present)... if that makes sense at all. :-) Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you actually want .*Mental.*?problem.* (non-greedy) because otherwise it may not behave the way you want.--Jorm (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it matters in this situation. Once "Mental" and "problem" are found, the MediaWiki software will flag the title as a match and that's all we care about. "Greedy" vs "non-greedy" sees more of a use when you want to write scripts or code in order to capture the characters or text that is contained between two symbols. In this case, all we care about is if there's a match or not. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to switch to your proposed code, Oshwah, because a quick search found just two good-faith pages whose creation would have been blocked: emergency mental health problems and User:Tm.plabon/Books/Money is a kind of mental problem. Our life is full of problems. Two other good pages have these words in the title (Problem of mental causation and its talk page), and otherwise the words occur only in the user talk pages of nine vandal accounts, e.g. Wiki users have serious mental problems. And Home Lander, some of these vandals have been blocked with "LTA" as the rationale, so we're probably overlapping somewhat. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, could be way off-base, but I believe I may have dealt with this LTA before. See [81] and [82] (explicit titles, recovered from my CSD logs). It could be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bags of atoms, note username at bottom of list there. Home Lander (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - If keeping false positive hits to as minimum of an amount as possible is your first priority over flagging matches and disallowing page creations, you should use the code you originally added (.*Mental problem.*) instead of the code improvements I came up with here. My proposed code compared to the code you added with your edit to the blacklist just increases the string pool in which page titles could be flagged as a match. Your code (.*Mental problem.*) would've certainly worked just fine. It would just flag page creations containing the exact string, "Mental problem". Replacing the space between the two words with .* just widens the search by also flagging page titles that contain "Mental" and then "problem" somewhere in the title afterwards, and with any number of characters, words, numbers, strings, whatever to be between the two words. When it comes to regex in general, the less wildcard symbols you include in your expression (like ., *, ?, and others), the more strict and explicit the statement will be, and hence the less results that will be flagged. If you run into any more questions, need more input regarding regex, or if you need an extra person on the case to help put an end to things, just let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand with anything you need (just ping me here so that I'm notified). Cheers and good luck! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but actually I meant to expand the scope of the blacklist entry, based on the search to which I referred: there isn't a single page in all of Wikipedia (as of when I ran the search) that has both words in its title, except for a few userpages and the pages I specified, and two of those pages wouldn't be affected because the words are out of order. This makes me believe that the risk of good-page-creation being hindered by any part of this rule is tiny, and the risk of the expansion is smaller yet. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - Ohhhhh! Okay, I see what you meant to say now... Sorry. Then yes, that updated code we went over together here should do fine. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian IP's promotion edits (Topper13009 reporting 106.51.106.239 & 49.207.61.70)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

106.51.106.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

49.207.61.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These seemingly linked IP's are vandalizing pages of Indian cinematographers to add reference to the Indian Society of Cinematographers, which appears to be paid editing or single-issue editing. The IP editors contribution pages show that the "49" address stopped editing around January 16, and then the "106" address started up in the same pattern as the previous editor around January 20. The pattern mainly consists of adding in links to the ISC beside the cinematographer's name, or adding "ISC" to the "title" parameter of the subject's infobox.

- Topper13009 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• 49.207.61.70 is a static IP but has not edited since January 16. 106.51.106.239 is a static IP. I gave them a final warning for unsourced content. The one page I looked at already had the ISC link before either got to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Oshwah and Dlohcierekim: FYI, 106 still editing since the warning/close: [83], [84] (restore after revert), and [85]. ^Leviv_ich? ! 07:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This IP is now blocked for 36 hours for the persistent addition of unsourced content to articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Central bank of iran vandalized by troll farm

Central Bank of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please keep watch of changes..and revert sock puppets. Thanks.66.87.85.155 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a revert war with THIS, by 66.87.31.105 with edit summary "(revert soutced uncontroversial edits: "user:Trustbanker" objective was hiding the fact that wether "Russian" or "British", Banking in Iran was/is controlled by Jews..)" followed by THIS by Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 with edit summary "(Wikipedia is not a platform for anti-semitism. Only content supported by sources shall remain."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I SP'd the thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

except there is nothing "antisemtic" at all. The SOURCED long standing portion carefully removed shows exactly that FACT (i.e. National bank of Persia and Bank Eskerazi were owned by Reuters and Polyakov - 2 Jewish businessmen of their respective countries - UK and Russia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.85.155 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assertion of Jewish conspiracy theories involving the money supply of a country ARE anti-semitic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

U need to see a good doctor, Liz. Sorry, we can't help you.66.87.85.155 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's enough. Your messages and comments toward other editors are expected to be compliant with Wikipedia's civility policy; personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you're making an assertion using original research or your thoughts and opinions to add content that's not explicitly stated in the references provided in the article, it's not in compliance with our policies and guidelines and will be reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit itself does not seem clearly anti-semitic. The edit summary does though. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You do look like con-artists, however!66.87.85.155 (talk)

Who's we? Is there a mouse in your pocket?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like bad-faith all around: the IP's comments on one hand, and the deletion of removal of extensive well-sourced content on the other. You can't remove a lot of content on grounds of "content supported by sources shall remain", unless that content actually isn't properly sourced: this removal included a large table of data derived from the International Monetary Fund, which is definitely a reliable source for currency in circulation, foreign currency deposits, etc. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP user is blocked for 36 hours for their disruptive edits and continued uncivil comments made here - enough is enough. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

But let's not overlook it was Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 who removed the table with the "(Wikipedia is not a platform for anti-semitism. Only content supported by sources shall remain" edit summary.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A further discussion regarding this user's edits and conduct here is expected (of course) - I'm not going to allow editors to make uncivil troll-like comments like the ones left above by the IP user; my block and comment above was simply added to note the action I took against the IP user and why. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, who left Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 an ANI notification on their user talk page? ... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

damn!  Done. Got so much from the one I forgot about the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified Trustbanker, who I guess made the original removal of sourced content.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They're accused of being the same editor but I dont think a SPI was filed. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:6CDA:320:FB33:BAE3 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I put a important detail and it removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brarife (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This [[86]] was your edit, it is not important. But it was not vandalism, and in that respect Cluebot was wrong. But it did not add anything to the article of worth.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

ClueBot was correct. That addition was not encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Not entirely constructive and also unsourced. Did not know ClueBot was so discerning.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at last 10 reverts, saw one iffy that was correct. Rest were spot on.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit wasn't vandalism but it wasn't adding anything constructive either. This aside, it's obviously not in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Not a revert that's 100% spot-on in terms of vandalism, but this is not a case where ClueBot is "malfunctioning". Brarife, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be very beneficial to you. It'll give you a significant head start with learning how things work, how to navigate around the project, locate important documents and locations, and make good contributions. Please do it! You'll be happy that you did! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TBH I was within an inch of indeffing this account purely on the rule of thumb that anyone who claims ClueBot is malfunctioning is either a sock or a vandal, but held off thinking, "I don't have time to check and you never know... GoldenRing (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh, that's been what I've seen in my experience as well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

IP editor deleting catagories

Hi, there's a single-purpose IP editor deleting a single category from articles DIFs, notification on their Talk Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted the current edits. Should be good for now. A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Help?

Could someone please revert to the last good revision at Shaggy Rogers? Thanks, A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

But TBH, the vandalism is pretty funny to me. I archived it with screenshots. A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

looks like there is a request for protection at WP:RPP due to the recent vandalism. That should curb it. Agent00x (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the vandalism is because of a recent meme (google "ultra instinct shaggy" for details) SemiHypercube 22:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected. I compared the current revision of the article to a revision back in 2018 and I don't see any vandalism. I'll do some manual spot-checking, but I'm pretty confident that any obvious or blatant vandalism should be gone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2600:8803:3400:CF70::/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edits: [87]

This user has, for months, been editing dates on TV-related articles without sources or explanation. It is a common form of sneaky vandalism. Given the frequency of IP change, no single warning has "stuck". Requesting a short rangeblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't see any constructive edits, so I'd be inclined make an anon-only block for a month. Still learning about range blocks, so will defer to those of greater experience.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've applied a two-week block to the IPv6 /64 CIDR range for the persistent addition of unreferenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock request for 2600:8803:3400:CF70::/64- follow up learning experience

@Oshwah: Is this an example of the usefulness of checkuser to prevent collateral damage or would a simple review of contribs from the range have sufficed?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Lets move this to a discussion on my user talk page and I'll be happy to go through this with you. Just to keep ANI discussions on-track and involving incidents. :-) Can you start a discussion on my user talk page so I can help you out? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Crisx284 [88]

I'm having trouble with this user. She doesn't understand English very well and keeps reverting edits (Edit Warring) I make on a page because she thinks shows like Dragon Booster and Pucca are produced by Disney, when they're not. I've tried reporting her to the Adminstrator against Vandalism, but it was rejected. don't bother going onto her talk page, as she'll just argue back. She also personally attacked me as well. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: It would speed/aid the process if you provided difs for the problem edits.---- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified user of this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:LTPHarry#disney distributed the series okay provides insight into Crisx284's anger at OP. When told he was wrong, LTPHarry gave her a "yeah but". At this point I think the heavy-handed warnings did more harm than good.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Her reply at his talk page contradicts OP's assertion about what she thinks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like the user has been blocked by Black Kite for edit warring. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked them for 48h (Dlohcierekim's comments were posted after I went off to do it). They're edit-warring against multiple people and don't seem to want to stop, and it also looks like they're the same 190.x.x.x IP that caused the page to be semi-protected in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oooh... IP? This user might make sockpuppets during his/her block. I'd recommend keeping an eye on the semi-protected page to see if there are any new IP edits that follow this user's pattern. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

edit warring is always wrong even when you are right.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

She went back to harassing me on another Wiki just now, saying it was all my fault for it all. If you've seen, I tried to give her reasons but she refused to listen. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

LTPHarry - Which project? Where? Can you provide a diff to that continued harassment you speak of? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I deleted the comment she sent me on the Wiki (it’s one I operate through FANDOM) so I cannot, sorry. If I didn’t delete it, I would have sent you the link. Just believe me that she really did say that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia can you read all-caps bilingual personal attacks like this one [89], summarized as: Rolie Polie Olie is made by Disney, you son of a $#%^! The symbols are bad words in case you don't understand! ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2600:1700:4210:810::/64

Edits: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4210:810::/64

Block evasion by Special:Contributions/2600:1007:b000::/42. Same edits: old range, new range.

Requesting 3 month block for this range as well. This range isn't used too often, but all edits appear to be hoax info related to TV.

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've applied a two-week block to the /64 IPv6 range pending a deeper look into the block evasion and how far the disruption goes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Noodz53211

Besides the odd name that sounds like "nudes", this user is doing a lot of number changes and should be looked into. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Tornado chaser:

How does updating my alma mater's basketball coach's page after each game affect your life so adversely?

Also, my username has nothing to do with nudity, so keep your dirty mind to yourself, and stay out of my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodz53211 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Noodz53211: It doesn't "affect my life adversely", wikipedia has a problem with people adding false info or nonsense, sometimes people change numbers just because they think fooling people is fun. Also, vandals often have sexual usernames, so you showed 2 signs that in my experience are signs of vandalism, if you are not vandalizing that is fine, I just wanted someone to look at your edits a little more closely to make sure you weren't adding hoaxes. For an example of the edits that I have to watch out for, see this fake tornado. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This could have been resolved quite easily with a question on Noodz53211's talk page. They hadn't even been welcomed before being brought to ANI. Bradv🍁 05:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this users edits, they just seem to be run of the mill sport stats updates. @Tornado chaser: You need to learn how to Assume good faith in the future before running straight to ANI, you very well could have just asked Noodz what they where doing on his/her talk page.TheMesquito^buzz 05:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Nowiki for links to non-sources

For at least a decade I have been wrapping links to questionable sources in non-mainspace pages with <nowiki> tags, to assist with monitoring use in mainspace. Leyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just reverted about 70 of these edits with an edit summary of "this is nonsense: article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all)", and calling it "censorship" on my talk page (a red flag in my experience, but whatever).

Leyo's comment that "article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all)" is simply incorrect. There is no namespace filter in Linksearch (there was briefly, but it has been removed). Adding insource in a Wiki search is also problematic. In fact both linksearch and insource wiki search are frequently inaccurate and out of date, the search indexers do not seem to be working well at the moment.

A 2008 discussion of this exact process in the context of a site that was problematic for other reasons unambiguously endorsed it:

Removing links whilst not removing context or content from discussions does not violate any policies and is an efficient way of removing links to potentially problematic sites. BLP and Copyright policies come way above any policies on editing closed deletion discussions in any case, so Guy's edits are entirely acceptable. In short, Guy's edits are of no detriment to the encyclopedia - they directly and indirectly benefit the project. Any discussions on removing links and the right to link to material which violates copyright and policy here needs to be discussed elsewhere as it's not something limited to just this one storm in a teacup. Such a discussion would also be of intense interest to a large number of other editors, and should such a discussion take place, notices would best be left at various Village Pump and Copyright help desk boards. Nick (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

— Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390 § User:JzG and the Post Chronicle

There have been other discussions since, with the same outcome, and I am not aware of any that have concluded otherwise. Using nowiki tags strikes a balance between monitoring the links using the limited technical tools available, while retaining the project and talk page content in as close as possible to its original sense and meaning.

But consensus can change. This is a thing I have done for a long time to keep the number of links down and simplify monitoring of link abuse, do I now need to either remove the links altogether or just suck up the time it takes to watch for links to dodgy sources? That would be quite boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hm. Leyo's editing does look problematic here. Ordering other editors what to do because I know best is not a good start, especially when you then threaten to block them for something that isn't in the slightest blockworthy. Then despite that discussion, unilaterally removing the nowikis in around 75 talk pages with a comment of removing "censorship" (Guy is right, this is always a red flag) while the discussion is still happening at WP:RS/N? I'm somewhat unimpressed, I have to say. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  The revert comment was NOT censorship but this is nonsense: article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all). Only on the user discussion page I used that word. I may have used another one, but since I am not a native English speaker, I do not always find the best possible expressions.

  Monitoring the use of a certain website in the article namespace may easily been done using e.g. insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/. --Leyo 11:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC) PS. @Black Kite: "Then despite that discussion, unilaterally removing the nowikis in around 75 talk pages" is actually not the full story. JzG has added the nowiki tags while the discussion was still running (which I consider highly problematic). I just restored the versions to the status before that discussion. This is a standard admin procedure. --Leyo 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, yes, that is exactly what I said. Your comment on censorship was, as Black Kite said, on my talk page, where you said, and I quote, I reverted your censorship to talk pages, archives etc. Talk page contributions of other users should only be altered for grounds like linking to websites with dangerous content or such things. In addition, the article name space may be easily monitored individually, e.g. using CirrusSearch. As I pointed out above, this does not work. You may well not be aware of that as I am sure you don't spend much of your time monitoring bogus links (which obviously I do), but even if you were, you are dictating a dogmatic view of how others should go about their volunteer work without thinking to ask why they do it that way in the first place. Which comes back to OiD's comment: this looks like grudge-bearing, which is not an attractive quality. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"As I pointed out above, this does not work." This is actually not true (anymore): If the search query isn't too complex, insource: finds all occurrences, as it does in this case. I can assert you that I've been spending a lot of time with various maintenance work, even if only partly in the en.wikipedia. --Leyo 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually these reverts were not related to the RSN discussion at all - they were links to the website of to Environmental Working Group, an official-sounding pressure group (501(c)(4)) with a less than stellar reputation for accuracy. I cleaned out the mainspace links ages ago but only nowikid the non-mainspace recently, largely because wading through 100+ links to see if new mainspace ones had been added was getting boring. The RSN discussion is about alanwood.net, a personal website, and the Pesticide Action Network, another pressure group whose pages were being used as if they were a neutral reference source (last I looked there was no pushback on that at all, only fans of Alan Wood). And this is all good faith stuff, EWG and PAN especially deliberately set out to appear like legitimate authorities, it's not a surprise that good-faith editors, especially those with an environmentalist preference, mistakenly pick these up. I'd have been suckered too before I started specialising in sourcing and spamming on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Actually these reverts were not related to the RSN discussion at all" is actually not true: Two of the three are being discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Compendium_of_Pesticide_Common_Names, with diverging views (concerning the namespace) so far. The third, ewg.org, is certainly not that problematic that users and readers should be hindered to access the links that have been posted on talk pages by multiple users over the past couple of years.

"I cleaned out the mainspace links ages ago" is actually not entirely true, either. You've removed quite some (e.g. here) four days ago. --Leyo 12:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was the last time I reviewed the link list. I do that periodically. That is, in fact, the entire point. Your claim that people are "hindered to access" these links, mainly in archived debates, is, I would submit, without merit. The trivial additional effort required to highlight the text and right-click to open is not significant, and, as per the original discussion noted above, there is a benefit to offset that trivial inconvenience, which, it must be noted, we have no evidence anybody has ever suffered. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not DMOZ. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Just add {{search link|insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/|ns=ns0=1}} (→ insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/) or similar to your website and you will get the same result. In fact, you even get a preview of the articles' source text. --Leyo 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I use that too, it is flaky. The index has been up to a month out of date before now, showing links that have been removed and omitting links that have been added. That's why I use both. It's the only reliable method I have found to date. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I find almost all of the time, anyone who cries censorship has no clue what it actually is. That aside, while Guy says this is unrelated to the pesticide issue, this just looks like retaliation for them not getting their own way. I cant think of any legitimate reason for them to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  See my reply above. --Leyo 11:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I do not believe links should be removed simply because the sites aren't RSes. I think we should only remove them when there are actual problems with the links. E.g. malware sites, sites or links with copyvios, sites or links with BLPvios. The summary of the discussion quoted above doesn't seem to be saying anything different. Also sites on the blacklist may be justified considering the problems it creates editing the pages although if they're in archives there may be questions over whether it matters. That said, this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss this. 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) BTW I don't quite understand why it's necessary to nowiki links to allow monitoring their use in articles/main space. Is there some reason why the built in WMF search engine can't simply be used for this? Or if it is, is there some reason limiting to main space doesn't work? It seems we should work with the WMF to fix any flaws which prevent the built in search from being used to monitor unwanted additions inside mainspace. But if it's really necessary to use third party search engines, it also seems to me it may be better to work with the WMF to find ways to exclude other names spaces/include only main space, e.g. by including unique terms. That would surely help everyone including Guy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I certainly agree concerning the examples "malware sites, sites or links with copyvios, sites or links with BLPvios". As the insource: search already works fine (see above), no further improvement of the WMF search engine seems to be required for now. --Leyo 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There are two things going on. One is the existence of well known unreliable sources (e.g. American Renaissance, Blood & Honor and so on) where we have consensus they don't meet WP:RS. I (and others) remove citations to those sites. The other is links to those sites in talk pages and other debates. These show up in Linksearch (see amren.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ). Linksearch is the most reliable way of finding links to a website, but the linksearch results are bulked out by talk pages and Wikipedia discussions, making it much harder to identify new links in mainspace. Thus I habitually - and for a long time - nowiki them in those pages. Not delete, they are still there, still visible in their original context, I just format them so they don't show up in Linsearch. That's the change Leyo chose to revert. He is the first person to do this in some years, to the best of my recollection, if anyone has ever done it at all. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• How does "[wrapping with] <nowiki> tags, to assist with monitoring use in mainspace. " assist this monitoring? A regex is going to look for a domain name, not a <nowiki>. Whatever else one might say about Leyo's edits here (and I can see the wagons circling already), they seem to have a point here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: It helps because Special:Linksearch only searches for actual links, not just URLs as text. See eg Special:Linksearch/forbes.com. If the links are only actual links in mainspace, then Special:Linksearch will only return hits in mainspace. I don't think this is the greatest way of tracking use of links. MediaWiki in fact has a facility to limit Linksearch by namespace, but it's turned off on WMF wikis because it makes the search quite expensive to run. If the `insource` method described above is broken, that should be put in a phab ticket and fixed. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)